NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

SLS / Orion / Beyond-LEO HSF - Constellation => Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle (HLV/SLS) => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2015 02:02 pm

Title: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/13/2015 02:02 pm
New Discussion Thread for SLS.

SLS Articles (lots of them):
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/sls/

L2 SLS:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=48.0

-

Do not post unless it's useful, on topic and interesting. This is not a place for the politics (that's in Space Policy), this is a place about the vehicle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 07/20/2015 09:55 pm
A NASA rendering.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 07/21/2015 12:05 am
A NASA rendering.

The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 07/21/2015 08:34 am
A NASA rendering.

The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 07/21/2015 04:11 pm
A NASA rendering.

The ML shown above does not match the present design for the converted ML.
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.

Well, if they're going to use the ML for SLS, it has to be modified from STS configuration.  I'm assuming you're trying to push an anti-SLS point, here, saying the ML shouldn't be modified because you don't think the SLS should ever fly.  But since it is being built and will fly, your point is moot.  They have to have at least two SLS-configured mobile launchers, one for backup in case the other gets stuck on a glitched C-T, as happened early in the Apollo flow.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2015 04:15 pm
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.

Well, if they're going to use the ML for SLS, it has to be modified from STS configuration.  I'm assuming you're trying to push an anti-SLS point, here, saying the ML shouldn't be modified because you don't think the SLS should ever fly.  But since it is being built and will fly, your point is moot.  They have to have at least two SLS-configured mobile launchers, one for backup in case the other gets stuck on a glitched C-T, as happened early in the Apollo flow.

There is only one ML and it was built for Ares I and is being converted for SLS.  The three shuttle MLP's are not being used for anything.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 07/21/2015 04:22 pm
Hope NASA is not thinking of modifying the current ML or possibly even build a new ML. :o Doesn't make much financial sense with the current launch rate of record.

Well, if they're going to use the ML for SLS, it has to be modified from STS configuration.  I'm assuming you're trying to push an anti-SLS point, here, saying the ML shouldn't be modified because you don't think the SLS should ever fly.  But since it is being built and will fly, your point is moot.  They have to have at least two SLS-configured mobile launchers, one for backup in case the other gets stuck on a glitched C-T, as happened early in the Apollo flow.

There is only one ML and it was built for Ares I and is being converted for SLS.  The three shuttle MLP's are not being used for anything.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.  Interesting, I would have thought that they would have used the MLPs as the basis for the new MLs, just as they used the Apollo MLs as the basis for the MLPs.  I'm also a little surprised they would only plan on having one of them, since as I say there was an Apollo ML that got stuck off to the side of 39A for several months when its C-T failed after a test drive of just the ML to the pad, and needed to be repaired in-place, back in 1968, IIRC.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 07/22/2015 05:44 am
This rendering still has the phony "Saturn V" looking paint-job as well.  Somebody at NASA just won't let that one go away.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Spacely on 07/22/2015 04:19 pm
How major were the modifications to turn the Ares I ML into one for SLS? Was it a total rebuild?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 07/22/2015 06:56 pm
When we speak of the Ares 1 ML, we aren't talking about the one they used to launch Ares 1X, are we?  I thought that was a standard Shuttle MLP and the Ares 1X was positioned over one of the SRB fire holes.

I'm taking it that there was an ML that was being constructed for Ares 1 that was mostly finished when the Ares program was canceled?  And this is what is being modified to support SLS?

Sorry if I wasn't following the construction of Areas program support structures all that closely in the mid-aughts.  Had other things that were pre-occupying me at the time...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/22/2015 07:31 pm

I'm taking it that there was an ML that was being constructed for Ares 1 that was mostly finished when the Ares program was canceled?  And this is what is being modified to support SLS?


Yes and yes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 07/22/2015 08:24 pm
NASA Developing Solar-sailing Cubesats for Inaugural SLS Launch

Quote
WASHINGTON — NASA is developing a pair of solar-sailing, science-collecting cubesats that will hitch a ride on the Space Launch System’s inaugural July 2018 launch.

The two spacecraft, currently envisioned as six-unit cubesats with deployable solar sails, will travel beyond low Earth orbit to conduct scientific observations of an asteroid and the moon.

NASA’s Near Earth Asteroid Scout, or NEA Scout, cubesat will conduct a 2020 flyby of asteroid 1991 VG to determine its size, movement and chemical composition.

The aptly named Lunar Flashlight cubesat will sail into a polar orbit around the moon by early 2019 then use its solar sail as a mirror, reflecting sunlight onto the cold, dark regions of the lunar poles. Once the polar regions are illuminated, onboard sensors will help determine the composition and distribution of frozen water and other volatiles hidden in the moon’s shadows.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-developing-solar-sailing-cubesats-for-inaugural-sls-launch/#sthash.0Ta4ceDh.dpuf
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 08/10/2015 04:00 am
That will be the EM-1 launch, right? July 2018 is the current date for that?

Also, what's the current plan for the advanced boosters? I've read several different things and I'm not clear on which is right.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 08/10/2015 05:14 pm
That will be the EM-1 launch, right? July 2018 is the current date for that?

Correct on both counts.

Quote
Also, what's the current plan for the advanced boosters? I've read several different things and I'm not clear on which is right.

Right now NASA is proceeding with SLS Block I for EM-1 (Core stage plus current boosters plus ICPS upper stage) and going immediately to Block IB (Core stage plus current boosters plus EUS upper stage). Advanced boosters will come after Block IB (so late 2020s). There are a couple of way NASA could go with this. They could go with Block II (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus another upper stage) or Block IIB (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus EUS upper stage).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 08/11/2015 12:28 am
Quote
Also, what's the current plan for the advanced boosters? I've read several different things and I'm not clear on which is right.

Right now NASA is proceeding with SLS Block I for EM-1 (Core stage plus current boosters plus ICPS upper stage) and going immediately to Block IB (Core stage plus current boosters plus EUS upper stage). Advanced boosters will come after Block IB (so late 2020s). There are a couple of way NASA could go with this. They could go with Block II (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus another upper stage) or Block IIB (Core stage plus advanced boosters plus EUS upper stage).

Probably more like early-mid 2020s. Last I heard they've only got enough SRB parts leftover from the shuttle to make about 10 boosters (so 5 SLS flights). 1 pair would be used for EM 1, and the next flight would be in 2021 or maybe 2020 if we're lucky, at about 1 launch a year, so that puts 2025 as the latest they could do a launch before switching to advanced boosters, unless they restart production (not exactly cheap). They've got the equipment to fuel and stack them, but thats it
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Vultur on 08/11/2015 01:17 am
Thank you.

That will be the EM-1 launch, right? July 2018 is the current date for that?

Correct on both counts.

Cool. Wikipedia says September 30 so that's why I was surprised.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 08/11/2015 08:48 pm

Probably more like early-mid 2020s. Last I heard they've only got enough SRB parts leftover from the shuttle to make about 10 boosters (so 5 SLS flights). 1 pair would be used for EM 1, and the next flight would be in 2021 or maybe 2020 if we're lucky, at about 1 launch a year, so that puts 2025 as the latest they could do a launch before switching to advanced boosters, unless they restart production (not exactly cheap). They've got the equipment to fuel and stack them, but thats it

I was under the impression that it was 10 pairs of boosters. If not then you are correct.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Raj2014 on 08/11/2015 09:29 pm
Does anyone know the exact and accurate dimensions of the SLS block 1B? Has NASA discussed what they would do after EM-2? I know they have plans for ARM, Europa and then Mars but do they have plans before ARM of in between?  When will NASA use the USA? Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead? I read that aerospike engines have had testing and are ideal for launches from the ground to LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/12/2015 12:04 am
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?

No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's).    SLS will fly only one to two times a year.  Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.

These questions are the same as those on Orion.  SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Raj2014 on 08/12/2015 11:36 am
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?

No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's).    SLS will fly only one to two times a year.  Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.

These questions are the same as those on Orion.  SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.

Interesting, I also read that during the use of the SLS it will be improved, is this true? Why not reduce operational costs? I understand with what you have said Jim, that they are re-using technologies but will that not reduce the costs as well?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 08/12/2015 12:55 pm
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?

No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's).    SLS will fly only one to two times a year.  Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.

These questions are the same as those on Orion.  SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.

Interesting, I also read that during the use of the SLS it will be improved, is this true? Why not reduce operational costs? I understand with what you have said Jim, that they are re-using technologies but will that not reduce the costs as well?
SLS is not going to be doing anything very revolutionary. There are some optimizations already being incorporated. An example would be the first new batch of RS-25 engines will have a new engine controller and less person hour intensive manufacturing. I'd expect like the Shuttle and even Saturn V that SLS will be upgraded over its lifetime. There is still likely to be some sort of advanced booster competition in the future where new technologies may be used. Also the EUS is likely to use RL-10 engines at first but may use another engine. It may also use composite tanks. Those things though are not finalized as the priority is getting the first two launched done.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BrightLight on 08/18/2015 01:37 am
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/asap-status-sls-orion-red-risks/

Really good article Chris, highly informative and also positive, I'm glad to see SLS is moving past CxP and maybe into flight status!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 08/18/2015 02:01 am
Good article. Although short it provided a fairly meaty summary of where the SLS is currently on its journey to flight status. You noted that ASAP still has a concern about schedule driving decisions that might be detrimental to crew safety. Personally I don't think that will be a problem. Pressure schedule can result when things are getting tight and there is no sign of any of that happening with the program. If anything SLS seems to be having a fairly easy time of it, which isn't really surprising as this is the evolutionary path that the Shuttle designers envisioned would be taken to field a true HLV based on the STS design. Over the years several designs began this way, only to fall victim to various circumstances. The two most recent were the NLS and DIRECT, both of which followed this pre-determined "path of least resistance" to an operational HLV. Alas it was not to be for either vehicle. But this third attempt may be the charm. SLS has gotten the furthest along of any of them, even passing where CxP was when it was cancelled, and has yet to encounter a single major problem with the design. We just might get to see the evolved STS HLV fly yet. One thing it has going for it, and a very big thing at that, is that there is plenty of budgetary support for this program, dispite the dearth of payloads to date, besides Orion, that would take advantage of its massive capability. But if SLS actually gets to the finish line and flies, I'm pretty sure that payloads won't be too far behind.

Once again - great article. Thank you.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/18/2015 02:16 am
Thanks for the great article Chris. The political will and the funding is there to build it so we should try to get behind it despite its mission uncertainty.  Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue perhaps some simple blowers to move it from under the vehicle along with the sparklers might do the trick...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/18/2015 10:42 am
Thanks very much! :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/20/2015 07:11 am
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disasterous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 08/20/2015 12:46 pm
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disasterous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
During the 70’s when the Shuttle was being designed there was concern that one of the SRBs could prematurely ignite causing a disaster. It could be similar thinking and precaution at play here... Agreed, at least they have a pad abort ability now...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 08/20/2015 01:12 pm
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/20/2015 01:32 pm
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.
They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 08/20/2015 03:10 pm
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.
They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.
If I'm not mistaken they also added butcher paper in various places so that the cameras on and around the pad could see if there were a fire.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DaveS on 08/20/2015 03:53 pm
Interesting the free hydrogen is still an issue

Thanks for pointing that out. In truth though has gaseous hydrogen ever been a concern for any group other than ASAP? In what way has the concern ever been quantified? I ask because sure, fireballs around e.g. Delta IV liftoffs have looked frightening, but have they ever had an impact on mission success? In particular for crew safety, suppose some disastrous contingency scenario were to occur -- isn't that what pad abort systems are designed to handle?
Following STS-41-D's pad abort free hydrogen that leaked from the engine cause a fire. Had the normal evacuation procedure been followed the crew would have encountered the fire. While Orion has a LES and Discovery didn't there are still situations where it would be preferable to get the crew out of the capsule rather than activate the LES.
They did change the procedures after the 41D RSLS abort to include the immediate activation of the Base Heat Shield (BHS) water deluge system (this is the water system that showers the engines after a RSLS abort). For 41D and earlier, the procedure was a manual activation and it was only in short bursts. After 41D they made it automatic as well as continues which kept the engines and the aft watered down for a good 15 minutes or so.
If I'm not mistaken they also added butcher paper in various places so that the cameras on and around the pad could see if there were a fire.
That was only on the aft vertical struts of the ET. They also installed alot more IR cameras. Before 41D they only had a few.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Gordon C on 08/22/2015 10:41 pm
Has NASA thought of using aerospike engines for the core stage instead?

No, the whole point of the SLS design is to use derivatives of shuttle propulsion elements (SSME and SRB's).    SLS will fly only one to two times a year.  Not enough to justfiy a new engine development program.

These questions are the same as those on Orion.  SLS and Orion are not designed to push the state of the art or to reduce operational costs.

If SLS were being built without want for use of STS hardware, would it stage sequentially like Saturn V did?  Or is there benefit to horizontal staging where even in absence of STS hardware it would look like Delta IV with boosters on the side of a big core?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/23/2015 12:11 am
If SLS were being built without want for use of STS hardware, would it stage sequentially like Saturn V did?

In late 2010, NASA engaged in a "Requirements Analysis Cycle" evaluating just this kind of question. See:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/12/heft-sls-hlv-design-decision-april-2011/

Ed Kyle wrote more about this:
http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/sls4.html

Of course the decision is now "water under the bridge," but your hypothetical question nonetheless deserves some sort of answer!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/24/2015 05:37 am
If SLS were being built without want for use of STS hardware, would it stage sequentially like Saturn V did?  Or is there benefit to horizontal staging where even in absence of STS hardware it would look like Delta IV with boosters on the side of a big core?

In addition to sdsds's pointer to the series-staged RAC-2 design, first principles suggest you would use traditional series staging rather than parallel staging for a clean-sheet expendable vehicle.  One of the good things about a traditional first stage is that weight is not critical.  Typically each kilogram added to the first-stage's structure reduces the LEO payload by only about 0.1 kg, because the stage isn't carried very far.  In a core-plus boosters design, on the other hand, the core is carried all the way to orbit, so each kilogram of added mass reduces the payload by 1 kg.  Hence, the whole core is a weight-critical structure, and its cost will tend to reflect that.

Another problem with parallel staging is that the core's engines need to operate at sea-level and, with high efficiency, in a vacuum.  This is perfectly possible, as the SSME proved, but it's not cheap.

A while ago I did a back-of-the-envelope numerical comparison (see the attachment) (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28796.msg895065#msg895065) of series and parallel staging to illustrate these arguments.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 09/02/2015 09:32 pm
Couple of links; first, this appears to be a recent SLS blog:
https://blogs.nasa.gov/Rocketology/

Second, the NASA Advisory Council link was fixed and this PowerPoint deck (presented at the end of July at the JPL meeting) has some good information on development/status and recent schedule forecasts:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/2-Hill-Exploration-Systems-Development-Status-ESD-Status-NAC_Hill-July-28_Final.pdf

The progress looks encouraging.  Reading into it, it looks like both Orion and SLS will be built and ready by the final quarter of 2017 if all goes well.  They mention mating the capsule with ESA's service module in 2017 but they don't elaborate much further on its progress; that makes me desire details on ESA's progress - the last thing we need is a delay caused by European and American contractors misinterpreting each other's Metric and Imperial/English measurements (which would be the least of more serious issues).  Hopefully minimal delays or issues occur and keep EM-1 ready for summer of '18.  :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 09/03/2015 01:15 am
When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.

Having been around when the Saturn-V was flying I am constantly irritated when I see statements like this. Everybody is always insisting that we compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges, EXCEPT when it comes to showcasing the SLS - as if there is nothing else out there that compares favorably. Here's where us "old-timers" step in to set the record straight and keep the SLS proponents honest.

The configuration of SLS above includes two (2) solid side boosters, and then they compare it to the Saturn-V without side boosters. Well for everyone's information there were side booster versions of the Saturn-V being developed that used a pair of 120 inch diameter solids strapped to the side of the core. This vehicle would deliver in excess of 180 tonnes to LEO. If one wants to compare the SLS to Saturn, then compare it to this side-boosted variant. If one does not want to compare to this Saturn variant then delete the SLS solids and compare core to core. Keep it apples to apples. Either way SLS will always come out less than the Saturn.

For those who would say that the solid-boosted Saturn never actually existed I would say that neither does an actual SLS. But I would say that both vehicles were at a similar stage of development, with metal being bent for bothedit. That makes them completely comparable.

I'm not bashing the SLS by any means. What I am bashing is misleading statements about the SLS.

Edit: added clarifying phrase
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 09/03/2015 02:27 am
When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.

Having been around when the Saturn-V was flying I am constantly irritated when I see statements like this. Everybody is always insisting that we compare apples to apples rather than apples to oranges, EXCEPT when it comes to showcasing the SLS - as if there is nothing else out there that compares favorably. Here's where us "old-timers" step in to set the record straight and keep the SLS proponents honest.

The configuration of SLS above includes two (2) solid side boosters, and then they compare it to the Saturn-V without side boosters. Well for everyone's information there were side booster versions of the Saturn-V being developed that used a pair of 120 inch diameter solids strapped to the side of the core. This vehicle would deliver in excess of 180 tonnes to LEO. If one wants to compare the SLS to Saturn, then compare it to this side-boosted variant. If one does not want to compare to this Saturn variant then delete the SLS solids and compare core to core. Keep it apples to apples. Either way SLS will always come out less than the Saturn.

For those who would say that the solid-boosted Saturn never actually existed I would say that neither does an actual SLS. But I would say that both vehicles were at a similar stage of development. That makes them completely comparable.

I'm not bashing the SLS by any means. What I am bashing is misleading statements about the SLS.

While I see your point, it's not valid under these circumstances.

Metal is being bent, the boosters and engines are real, SLS will launch in less than three years. You can't say SLS doesn't exist.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/03/2015 10:20 am
For those who would say that the solid-boosted Saturn never actually existed I would say that neither does an actual SLS. But I would say that both vehicles were at a similar stage of development. That makes them completely comparable.

There is no need to compare with a solid boosted version of Saturn V. The Block I (70 t) and Block IB (93 t) versions of SLS are both below the Saturn V (118 t). These two versions are the only ones that NASA is currently planning on building. If NASA does decide to build the full Block II version of SLS (130 t), then that will indeed be the most powerful, but for now, they are definitely not building the world's most powerful rocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/03/2015 11:49 am
When completed, SLS, NASA's new rocket, will be one of the biggest, most powerful rockets ever built.

Having been around when the Saturn-V was flying I am constantly irritated when I see statements like this.
<snip>
I'm not bashing the SLS by any means. What I am bashing is misleading statements about the SLS.
Emphasis mine.

There is nothing misleading about the SLS statement. It does not say that SLS is THE most powerful rocket ever build. It specifically states that SLS is ONE of the most powerful rockets ever build. And that is correct. SLS in it's 70 mT and 93 mT incarnations stands among the most powerful rockets in the world, surpassed only by N-1, Energia and Saturn V.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/03/2015 04:05 pm
KSC shopping for Liquid Hydrogen solution ahead of SLS debut
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/03/ksc-shopping-lh2-ahead-sls-launch/

They should just replace the entire first stage with a RP1 fueled, F1 engine cluster.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RocketmanUS on 09/13/2015 08:21 pm
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?
Comparing one launch of SLS compared to one launch of Delta IVH.
So if SLS does become available then could it launch DIVH class payloads?
Would this same any money by being able to retire DIVH sooner before Vulcan/ACES could replace it?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/13/2015 08:33 pm
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?

Somewhere between $500 Million and $1 Billion. I believe Delta IVH is in the $300 Million range.

Quote
So if SLS does become available then could it launch DIVH class payloads?

Oh it could definitely handle DIVH class payloads. It wouldn't be even close to the best use for SLS in my opinion but it could physically do it.

Quote
Would this save any money by being able to retire DIVH sooner before Vulcan/ACES could replace it?

Not really. Remember SLS only has two flights on its manifest through 2021 and both of them are NASA dedicated. By 2021 Vulcan should be flying and Falcon Heavy should be online in the next year or so.

IMHO SLS should be dedicated to launching NASA payloads. That avoids competition with the commercial sector and frees up launches for deep space exploration (human and robotic).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 09/13/2015 08:45 pm
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?

Somewhere between $500 Million and $1 Billion. I believe Delta IVH is in the $300 Million range.

Closer to $400M for D-IVH
So if SLS does become available then could it launch DIVH class payloads?

Oh it could definitely handle DIVH class payloads. It wouldn't be even close to the best use for SLS in my opinion but it could physically do it.


SLS can't do polar orbits
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/13/2015 08:50 pm

Closer to $400M for D-IVH

Thanks for the correction. I was basing it off the EFT-1 Orion cost which was $330 Million.

Quote
SLS can't do polar orbits

Did not remember that. Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/13/2015 09:03 pm
IMHO SLS should be dedicated to launching NASA payloads.

Which is pretty much the default anyways.  The DoD/NRO would not want to use the SLS unless they had no options - and they will have options.

Quote
That avoids competition with the commercial sector...

Commercial capabilities will always be potential competitors to the SLS, since unless commercial options are specifically eliminated as options (i.e. by law), their lower prices will always present "what if" situations to those that propose NASA missions - that SLS launches are not free, and commercial launch prices are going down.

Quote
...and frees up launches for deep space exploration (human and robotic).

What's to free up?  NASA already has the capability to build two SLS per year, and the cost to build two SLS-sized payloads per year would require a HUGE increase in NASA's development and operational budget.  Assuming NASA doesn't get a budget bump, and assuming the ISS stays operational through 2024, NASA won't be able to afford even one launch per year.  Based on that, of course they would jump at the chance for someone else to use the SLS... but that's unlikely to happen, for a number of reasons.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/13/2015 09:36 pm
What is the cost for one additional flight of SLS?
Somewhere between $500 Million and $1 Billion.

No, $1B is too high.  Assuming the program exists and can handle the extra flight, an SLS launch by itself cannot reasonably be expected to add more than about $500M to the program's cost, probably below $400M, could be below $300M.

You're talking about the operations cost of existing technology, and not the part that depends strongly on flight rate either.  Moreover, basically all of the changes that have the potential to significantly affect cost are cost-saving measures.  The marginal cost of launching a Shuttle-derived LV is not going to balloon like the development cost of a cutting-edge space telescope.

Now, what NASA would charge for such a launch may be a different story; they might try to take advantage of the situation to offload some of their fixed costs, as if they were a commercial operation...  Shuttle didn't, back in the day, but that was then...

Quote
...and frees up launches for deep space exploration (human and robotic).
What's to free up?  NASA already has the capability to build two SLS per year, and the cost to build two SLS-sized payloads per year would require a HUGE increase in NASA's development and operational budget.  Assuming NASA doesn't get a budget bump, and assuming the ISS stays operational through 2024, NASA won't be able to afford even one launch per year.

Human missions shouldn't require brand-new hardware development for every flight.  And there's at least one option that only requires one new piece of hardware to start and would remain worthwhile launching as often as twice a year or more.  The increase required would not be "HUGE", certainly not in the way you've claimed in the past.

I think there's more flex in the budget than you realize.  Once SLS and Orion (and Commercial Crew) transition to ops, the cost will come down, and a wedge for hardware development will open up.  Furthermore, SLS isn't all about huge payloads to LEO; one reason the science people are interested is that it can provide a large amount of delta-V to a quite ordinary-sized probe.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RocketmanUS on 09/14/2015 12:58 am
OK, so then polar orbits would be the issue for SLS to take over DIVH launches till Vulcan/ACES could be ready, not the launch price.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/14/2015 01:21 am
I suspect that the quoted launch price for DIVH is not the incremental cost to the U.S. Government of procuring the vehicle.  I imagine it includes a bunch of fixed costs.  So that would be an apples-to-oranges comparison; the cost to the USG to procure an additional SLS flight given a running program with enough headroom to allow the launch might only be a few hundred million, but if I'm right the marginal cost of the Delta IV Heavy would be lower than that.

So this comparison is only really useful if you're in a situation where your budget would take the full hit of the DIVH price but only the marginal cost of an SLS (it might be possible to get the SMD into such a situation, but the DoD probably isn't).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/14/2015 02:14 am
I suspect that the quoted launch price for DIVH is not the incremental cost to the U.S. Government of procuring the vehicle.  I imagine it includes a bunch of fixed costs.  So that would be an apples-to-oranges comparison; the cost to the USG to procure an additional SLS flight given a running program with enough headroom to allow the launch might only be a few hundred million, but if I'm right the marginal cost of the Delta IV Heavy would be lower than that.

So this comparison is only really useful if you're in a situation where your budget would take the full hit of the DIVH price but only the marginal cost of an SLS (it might be possible to get the SMD into such a situation, but the DoD probably isn't).

You seriously think the incremental cost of the SLS is only a few hundred million dollars? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/14/2015 02:37 am
No, $1B is too high.  Assuming the program exists and can handle the extra flight, an SLS launch by itself cannot reasonably be expected to add more than about $500M to the program's cost, probably below $400M, could be below $300M.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that most SLS cost estimates are ridiculously overestimated (I think $500 Million is a little too low though). I was trying to give Rocketman a range of realistically imaginable costs.

Quote
You're talking about the operations cost of existing technology, and not the part that depends strongly on flight rate either.  Moreover, basically all of the changes that have the potential to significantly affect cost are cost-saving measures.  The marginal cost of launching a Shuttle-derived LV is not going to balloon like the development cost of a cutting-edge space telescope.

Agreed. A lot of people seem to think that SLS costs are absurd. The fact is that annual developmental costs of both SLS and Orion have been $1-2 Billion lower than the cost to run the space shuttle every year. That is a drastic improvement and for much more capability.

I've run the numbers several times. The whole SLS/Orion program (including things like hab modules and landers) is going to have lower costs than the shuttle program.

Quote
The increase required would not be "HUGE", <snip>

Exactly. NASA was able to run shuttle concurrently with the construction and maintenance of ISS. Increases to the budget don't have to be extreme.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/14/2015 03:53 am
No, $1B is too high.  Assuming the program exists and can handle the extra flight, an SLS launch by itself cannot reasonably be expected to add more than about $500M to the program's cost, probably below $400M, could be below $300M.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that most SLS cost estimates are ridiculously overestimated. I was trying to give Rocketman a range of realistically imaginable costs.

And in the absence of real cost numbers (which NASA is very behind on providing) comparisons to existing systems are one way to help estimate costs.

For instance, Delta IV Heavy is a vehicle that is in constant production by virtue of the Delta IV it's based on being flown about three times per year (avg flights/year going back to 2009).  The flight ops team is also shared with Atlas V to a certain degree, so the overhead is lower than if it had to absorb all the overhead itself (like SLS will have to do).

The SLS, from what I can tell, is probably at least twice the dry mass of Delta IV Heavy, and the Delta IV Heavy is a pretty simple design to start with (SLS not as much) - mass is a good indicator of how much manufacturing effort has to be done.  Both launchers have to account for contractor profit within their overall costs to end users, with ULA adding their own profit at the launch (which the SLS would not have), and the SLS having to pay profit to everyone that provides pieces of the SLS, the contractor that will assemble the SLS, and the contractor that will provide launch operations (they might be the same, I'm just breaking them out).

So assuming that the SLS will be the same cost as the Delta IV Heavy, or even possibly less, doesn't look right.

Quote
The fact is that annual developmental costs of both SLS and Orion have been $1-2 Billion lower than the cost to run the space shuttle every year. That is a drastic improvement and for much more capability.

What the annual costs are is irrelevant, only the total cost is relevant.

Quote
I've run the numbers several times. The whole SLS/Orion program (including things like hab modules and landers) is going to have lower costs than the shuttle program.

Considering there are no designs yet for hab modules and landers, estimates have to be qualified.  And considering that the current human rated vehicle NASA is building (i.e. Orion MPCV) is costing $8B or more, and taking 18 years until it becomes operational, I'd guess your estimates are probably a little low.

Now if NASA uses existing ISS modules, then great, not much development needed.  But no real need for the SLS either, since lower cost commercial launchers can deliver them too.  The best use of the SLS will be for SLS-sized payloads only, or like as you pointed out, those few robotic probes that could use an extra boost.

Quote
NASA was able to run shuttle concurrently with the construction and maintenance of ISS. Increases to the budget don't have to be extreme.

A number of things to remember:

The ISS has a lot of partners.  NASA's portion of the station from 1985 to 2015 is estimated to be $72.4 billion in 2010 dollars, and the Shuttle provided 27 deliveries.  Taking into account the $1.2B average cost of the Shuttle (development not included), the Shuttle was almost half the cost of building the ISS.

Also, NASA's budget today is projected to be about $18B (in 2014 Constant Dollars).  NASA's budget during the ISS construction was up to a 1/3 more per year at it's peak.  You can't expect the same level of activity for the SLS at a far less vigorous budget level, especially one that doesn't even open up until the mid 2020's - well beyond when NASA needs to be flying the SLS every year for safety reasons.  The numbers don't add up.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 09/14/2015 02:23 pm
The cost of a launch system depends on who is doing the accounting. People in favor of a particular system tend to look at operational and marginal costs. Those opposed tend to throw in the cost of the development and what ever else. Thus it should be no surprise that the costs of a Shuttle mission has been quoted as from a few million to a billion dollars. SLS is no different.

The cost of flying one more Shuttle mission was quoted by Mike Griffin as about $300 million. That assumes that the operational costs for the year have been paid and there is extra production capacity. Griffin may have been low-balling a bit but it seems reasonable. There were 4 flights in 2008 and  5 flights in 2009 for about $3 billion per year. So with people estimating $500 million for SLS that sounds reasonable. SLS however is not able to be produced in huge numbers. The Shuttle could fly 5+ missions a year. SLS will be able to do 3 max a year with the current infrastructure.

The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/14/2015 03:12 pm
The cost of a launch system depends on who is doing the accounting. People in favor of a particular system tend to look at operational and marginal costs. Those opposed tend to throw in the cost of the development and what ever else. Thus it should be no surprise that the costs of a Shuttle mission has been quoted as from a few million to a billion dollars. SLS is no different.

I look at the total cost, while also breaking out the development and operational portions.  It's the only way to get a full up apples-to-apples cost, since "marginal cost" estimates are usually simplified too far and ignore large classes of costs like overhead.

Quote
The cost of flying one more Shuttle mission was quoted by Mike Griffin as about $300 million. That assumes that the operational costs for the year have been paid and there is extra production capacity.

Mike Griffin said a lot of things that were flat out wrong, and why make assumptions when facts exist?

There are a number of articles that look at total cost of the Shuttle program, and dividing the number of flights flown yields the average total cost - which was about $1.5B.  Some articles on the subject here:

As Shuttle Program Ends, Final Price Tag Is Elusive (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303544604576433830373220742) - WSJ
5 Horrifying Facts You Didn't Know About the Space Shuttle (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/04/18/5-horrifying-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-space-shuttle/) - Forbes
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion (http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html) — Was it Worth It? - Space.com

It's worth noting that NASA agrees with these numbers now.

Quote
SLS will be able to do 3 max a year with the current infrastructure.

There is an NSF thread where this is discussed.  Bottom line is that as currently set up NASA can build slightly less than two per year, but with some additional money that can be increased to two per year.  Lots more money would be needed to increase that rate beyond two.

Quote
The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.

A number of years ago I was told (i.e. corrected) by Dr. Paul Spudis that a Delta IV Heavy cost $400M to NASA.  He and I didn't see eye to eye on commercial launch costs in general (he is an SLS fan), but I believed him on that.

Regardless though, thinking that the SLS will cost approximately the same as a Delta IV Heavy (i.e. $300-400M range) doesn't seem to make sense.  Delta IV Heavy is far more simple to manufacture, and it looks to be half the mass of the SLS.

If you want to look at what SLS costs were estimated to be, here is one article to look at.  Maybe it's very early in it's estimates, but that would provide a starting point for making corrections:

The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/01/the-hlv-cost-in.html) - NASA Watch

Some things cost what they cost, and they are worth what they cost to the users.  The Shuttle was that way, since Congress pretty much didn't care what the cost of each flight was - no one in Congress tracked it.  And if we had unlimited funding the cost of the SLS wouldn't really matter much either, but when budgets are constrained it does become an important factor, especially when the cost of the SLS is not just the rocket, but the payloads and missions that are built specifically for it.  You have to look at the opportunity cost.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/14/2015 03:50 pm
While a commercial LV eg FH probably could deliver DSH modules if they are based on ISS sized modules. The SLS can deliver these modules for free as they can go with the Orion on a crew flight to lunar space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 09/14/2015 05:17 pm
The cost of a launch system depends on who is doing the accounting. People in favor of a particular system tend to look at operational and marginal costs. Those opposed tend to throw in the cost of the development and what ever else. Thus it should be no surprise that the costs of a Shuttle mission has been quoted as from a few million to a billion dollars. SLS is no different.

I look at the total cost, while also breaking out the development and operational portions.  It's the only way to get a full up apples-to-apples cost, since "marginal cost" estimates are usually simplified too far and ignore large classes of costs like overhead.
Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask. Once again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.

Quote
Quote
The cost of flying one more Shuttle mission was quoted by Mike Griffin as about $300 million. That assumes that the operational costs for the year have been paid and there is extra production capacity.

Mike Griffin said a lot of things that were flat out wrong, and why make assumptions when facts exist?

There are a number of articles that look at total cost of the Shuttle program, and dividing the number of flights flown yields the average total cost - which was about $1.5B.  Some articles on the subject here:

As Shuttle Program Ends, Final Price Tag Is Elusive (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303544604576433830373220742) - WSJ
5 Horrifying Facts You Didn't Know About the Space Shuttle (http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolpinchefsky/2012/04/18/5-horrifying-facts-you-didnt-know-about-the-space-shuttle/) - Forbes
NASA's Shuttle Program Cost $209 Billion (http://www.space.com/12166-space-shuttle-program-cost-promises-209-billion.html) — Was it Worth It? - Space.com

It's worth noting that NASA agrees with these numbers now.
Those articles do not give the marginal cost, only total cost. The facts you are providing do not answer the question. Griffin, like him or hate him, was the administrator of NASA and is an authoritative source. He was asked what the marginal cost was. His answer is in line with the program budgetary figure from that time. If the the cost to fly an extra Shuttle mission was $1.5 billion how did they budget ~$3 billion in 2009 and fly 5 missions?
Quote
Quote
SLS will be able to do 3 max a year with the current infrastructure.

There is an NSF thread where this is discussed.  Bottom line is that as currently set up NASA can build slightly less than two per year, but with some additional money that can be increased to two per year.  Lots more money would be needed to increase that rate beyond two.


The current infrastructure can support up to 3 launches a year and produce two rockets a year. That figure comes straight from the SLS program.
Quote
Quote
The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.

A number of years ago I was told (i.e. corrected) by Dr. Paul Spudis that a Delta IV Heavy cost $400M to NASA.  He and I didn't see eye to eye on commercial launch costs in general (he is an SLS fan), but I believed him on that.
Did ULA give LM and the Orion program a $100 million discount on the price of a Delta IV heavy? Its an expensive rocket but its not $400 million, at least to launch a NASA payload like Orion.
Quote
Regardless though, thinking that the SLS will cost approximately the same as a Delta IV Heavy (i.e. $300-400M range) doesn't seem to make sense.  Delta IV Heavy is far more simple to manufacture, and it looks to be half the mass of the SLS.

If you want to look at what SLS costs were estimated to be, here is one article to look at.  Maybe it's very early in it's estimates, but that would provide a starting point for making corrections:

The HLV Cost Information NASA Decided Not To Give To Congress (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2011/01/the-hlv-cost-in.html) - NASA Watch
Still not talking about marginal costs here. Also using 4 year old data on a hypothetical program rather than data from a program which is bending metal now. This also highlights the problem with your favored accounting method. It only works on finished programs which are no longer flying, or if one can predict the future number of flights. Here it is an arbitrary 18 flights. BTW the Direct guys made a pretty good argument that sidemount would have cost more. That chart was talked a lot about back when it was first posted.

Quote
Some things cost what they cost, and they are worth what they cost to the users.  The Shuttle was that way, since Congress pretty much didn't care what the cost of each flight was - no one in Congress tracked it.  And if we had unlimited funding the cost of the SLS wouldn't really matter much either, but when budgets are constrained it does become an important factor, especially when the cost of the SLS is not just the rocket, but the payloads and missions that are built specifically for it.  You have to look at the opportunity cost.
There is a fallacy in your argument. By talking about alternatives to SLS and opportunity cost you are begging the question of if those other options would enjoy the same funding and political support. Based on recent history that is certainly not a given. But that all is space policy and this isn't the place for that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/14/2015 07:40 pm
The SLS can deliver these modules for free as they can go with the Orion on a crew flight to lunar space.

Nothing is "free".  The cost of the launch would just be spread across all of the payload customers onboard, which in this case might be different departments within NASA, but NASA is still paying the full up cost.  Fully loading a launch vehicle is a good idea, just that there is a cost associated with each item on that launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 09/14/2015 08:07 pm
Quote
Quote
The cost of the Delta IV Heavy is likely to be lower than people quote. EFT-1 cost $370 million not including the capsule but including the custom hardware such as the LES and boilerplate service module. That was a Delta IV procured commercially by the Orion program. While the pricing information is proprietary I'd bet that the cost is closer to $300 million than $400 million.

A number of years ago I was told (i.e. corrected) by Dr. Paul Spudis that a Delta IV Heavy cost $400M to NASA.  He and I didn't see eye to eye on commercial launch costs in general (he is an SLS fan), but I believed him on that.
Did ULA give LM and the Orion program a $100 million discount on the price of a Delta IV heavy? Its an expensive rocket but its not $400 million, at least to launch a NASA payload like Orion.


Solar Probe Plus is $389 million. Who knows what D-IVH cost or availability will be later in the decade?

The equivalent Vulcan-ACES would be cheaper, but not available until the mid 2020's.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/14/2015 08:14 pm
Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask.

Here is the challenge.  When figuring out costs based on total spending, it's easy to see what the per unit cost is.  Total cost divided by the number of flights.  Simple math that everyone can understand.

Figuring out marginal cost though is not easy.  I've done a lot of digging to figure out marginal costs for the Shuttle program, and though I'm pretty good at it (I've done this for work purposes too), I was never able to use public records to figure it out.

Why?  Because once the Shuttle became a sustaining program the pieces and parts that make up a Shuttle, and the contracts that were issued for work to be performed, never lined up.  And even when they did, like when USA was formed to consolidate all Shuttle processing work, later amendments are either hard to find or hard to allocate to a specific Shuttle flight.

So the best that can be said is that whatever marginal costs are calculated using publicly available documentation, they will under-represent the actual marginal cost - potentially by quite a bit.

That can't happen when you're using total cost.

Now both total cost and marginal cost (where accurate) are useful for different reasons.  Total cost doesn't make a lot of sense when you haven't flown anything, but it does show what the opportunity costs are that you're giving up.  Marginal cost doesn't mean a lot if you don't remember how much it took to get to unit #1.

For instance, theoretically you could spend $1Trillion over 50 years to build a system that lifts 250mT but only costs $10M/launch.  However what was the opportunity cost for that?  How much could you have lifted with current commercial launch vehicles with that $1Trillion?  There are always tradeoffs...

Quote
Once again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.

Like all hardware programs, there were pieces and parts laying around that were mismatched purchases, so sure, the last flight could have been added without writing a check for $1.5B.  But that's because the Shuttle program had over-bought, and there were pre-negoitated contracts that could be extended.  And using end-of-life costing for a program just starting out doesn't make sense.

Now take a look at the SLS program.  There are no firm designs yet, since there are no customers and there are multiple configurations.  So there is no possible way to accurately figure out "marginal cost" when you don't know what you are building and you are just starting to build your first unit.  Boeing certainly doesn't know what their costs will be for units #1, 2 and 3, and neither does NASA.

When I say no firm designs, I mean from a manufacturing standpoint.  My specialty is in being the person that receives a customer order and sets up the entire manufacturing schedule for delivering the customer what they ordered.  I've done this for government one-off products, and high volume commercial electronics, so I have a lot of experience.  And as of today there are no customer order-able configurations for the SLS - and there wouldn't be, since the SLS is likely to be customized for every launch for quite a while.  But what that means is figuring out "marginal cost" from outside the SLS Program Office is impossible, and even for them it will take a lot of work.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/15/2015 08:47 am
Solar Probe Plus is $389 million.

And even with a Delta 4-Heavy launch the mission will need seven flybys of Venus!?! Has anyone explored what SLS with an EUS could do to improve that? It's just a hypothetical... but an interesting one nonetheless.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 09/15/2015 01:59 pm
Well that is kinda my point. You are not in favor of SLS so you chose the method which gives the highest per flight cost. The original poster asked a very specific question of what the marginal cost was. That is a useful thing to ask.

Here is the challenge.  When figuring out costs based on total spending, it's easy to see what the per unit cost is.  Total cost divided by the number of flights.  Simple math that everyone can understand.
How many flights will there be? I don't have a crystal ball.
Quote
Figuring out marginal cost though is not easy.  I've done a lot of digging to figure out marginal costs for the Shuttle program, and though I'm pretty good at it (I've done this for work purposes too), I was never able to use public records to figure it out.

Why?  Because once the Shuttle became a sustaining program the pieces and parts that make up a Shuttle, and the contracts that were issued for work to be performed, never lined up.  And even when they did, like when USA was formed to consolidate all Shuttle processing work, later amendments are either hard to find or hard to allocate to a specific Shuttle flight. So the best that can be said is that whatever marginal costs are calculated using publicly available documentation, they will under-represent the actual marginal cost - potentially by quite a bit. That can't happen when you're using total cost.
Its pretty easy. The marginal cost is what was needed to be added to the budgets beyond the yearly sustaining costs. The Shuttle didn't fly the same number of times every year. Thus they had to budget for each mission they flew. To bring this to SLS the question is if we fly one rocket this year how much more money will it take to fly another. That was the original question.

Diverting the discussion to total program cost is just confusing the issue. There is no way to calculate it because you need the program to have ended before you get the real figure. Some say SLS will only fly 4 times others that it will fly 40 or more. That is an order of magnitude! Each flight makes the per launch cost go down a little. So if using the ongoing total cost of missions flown to this point / costs till now to decide to continue the program of not you are using a metric which gives the most encouragement to cancel the program at the start. Wow EM-1 cost over $10 billion, we better not launch EM-2!
Quote
Now both total cost and marginal cost (where accurate) are useful for different reasons.  Total cost doesn't make a lot of sense when you haven't flown anything, but it does show what the opportunity costs are that you're giving up.  Marginal cost doesn't mean a lot if you don't remember how much it took to get to unit #1.

For instance, theoretically you could spend $1Trillion over 50 years to build a system that lifts 250mT but only costs $10M/launch.  However what was the opportunity cost for that?  How much could you have lifted with current commercial launch vehicles with that $1Trillion?  There are always tradeoffs...
Opportunity costs are a great way of arguing against any ongoing program because you can attack it without having to to suggest anything better. You also don't have to really make any evaluation on what are the other realistic opportunities. The FY2011 option was not a valid opportunity for example because it had no political support. SLS while perhaps not being the best technical solution may be the best option for which an opportunity exists.
Quote
Quote
Once again we can used the Shuttle program as an example. There was debate about adding that final resupply mission. Going by your accounting method STS-135 cost $1.5 billion dollars. The extra money which needed to be added to the budget was nowhere near that. Marginal cost is a necessary thing to look at when planning out a manifest.
Like all hardware programs, there were pieces and parts laying around that were mismatched purchases, so sure, the last flight could have been added without writing a check for $1.5B.  But that's because the Shuttle program had over-bought, and there were pre-negoitated contracts that could be extended.  And using end-of-life costing for a program just starting out doesn't make sense.

Now take a look at the SLS program.  There are no firm designs yet, since there are no customers and there are multiple configurations.  So there is no possible way to accurately figure out "marginal cost" when you don't know what you are building and you are just starting to build your first unit.  Boeing certainly doesn't know what their costs will be for units #1, 2 and 3, and neither does NASA.

When I say no firm designs, I mean from a manufacturing standpoint.  My specialty is in being the person that receives a customer order and sets up the entire manufacturing schedule for delivering the customer what they ordered.  I've done this for government one-off products, and high volume commercial electronics, so I have a lot of experience.  And as of today there are no customer order-able configurations for the SLS - and there wouldn't be, since the SLS is likely to be customized for every launch for quite a while.  But what that means is figuring out "marginal cost" from outside the SLS Program Office is impossible, and even for them it will take a lot of work.
Use any other STS flight that was the second of the year. Each one had to be budgeted. The question of what it takes to fly one more flight under this next year's budget is a question they had to answer almost every year when the program was flying. It is odd to think think that for 30 years the STS program had no clue what each mission would cost.

SLS passed CDR. To say there are no firm designs yet is wrong. SLS like most other rockets has different configurations. Each one of those configurations doesn't have to fly to figure out what things cost. The costing information is actually pretty well informed via STS experience.

You are undoubtedly good at what you do and knowledgeable about it. However it is not a given that the products you work with and your experience working with them are similar to large NASA HSF projects. If you are asking people to look at your resume and accept your arguments as an expert opinion then you are also inviting people to look at the opinions of other informed people. There are many that are more intimately knowledgeable with NASA's projects and practices both in the agency and other decision making organs of the government. The majority of those people disagree with you about SLS, some agree. It is an inconclusive way of approaching the issue at best.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/15/2015 05:13 pm
Its pretty easy. The marginal cost is what was needed to be added to the budgets beyond the yearly sustaining costs. The Shuttle didn't fly the same number of times every year. Thus they had to budget for each mission they flew.

No, that is not how the Shuttle program was funded, which goes to show why trying to estimate marginal costs is so fraught with potential for being underestimated.

For instance, the Shuttle External Tank (ET) and Solid Rocket Motors (SRM) were purchased in large multi-year contracts.  Sometimes those contracts were further amended, extending the contract periods too.  Here are two articles that show that:

NASA Extends Space Shuttle External Tank Contract (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=24363) - SpaceRef
NASA Extends Reusable Solid Rocket Motor Contracts with ATK Thiokol Through May 2007 (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8785) - SpaceRef

Even the contract with USA was multi-year, which replaced a quite a few individual contracts that would have had overlapping periods of performance, as well as tasks:

United Space Alliance and NASA Sign Space Flight Operations Contract (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+Space+Alliance+and+NASA+Sign+Space+Flight+Operations+Contract-a018721721) - Free Online Library

Notice that all of these contracts extended beyond the budget horizon for NASA.  This is something I'm very familiar with, since if I was the scheduling manager for the Shuttle or SLS programs I would be involved with procurement and contracts in defining how far out into the future we would be making purchases for every type of component, from screws to SRM's.

Everything is dependent on volume - how many of something you plan to make.  And it's even more complicated than that, since you have to account for how many, when, and of what configuration.

The more uncertainty there is in quantity, time and configuration means less certainty in cost, since contracts can't be defined and finalized until there is some agreed upon level of certainty.  But when enough can be decided, then contracts are negotiated years in advance of an SLS flight, and years in advance of the approved NASA budget.  You can see that in all three of the articles I referenced above.

Quote
To bring this to SLS the question is if we fly one rocket this year how much more money will it take to fly another. That was the original question.

What I've shown is that it's not easy to determine what the marginal costs are.  And until NASA gets approval to start building operational SLS, and those contracts get negotiated and made public, no one in the public will know what the real marginal costs will be.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 09/15/2015 07:10 pm
Even with multi-year contracts NASA still has to request a budget one year at a time. The number of manifested flights drove the yearly funding request of STS line item. It boils down to this, either NASA can answer the question of how much more money needs to be in the yearly budget request to launch a rocket or it cannot. It has been launching a rockets and requesting budgets for a while now. NASA is perfectly capable of figuring out the difference in cost between flying one SLS or two.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: arachnitect on 09/15/2015 07:21 pm
Solar Probe Plus is $389 million.

And even with a Delta 4-Heavy launch the mission will need seven flybys of Venus!?! Has anyone explored what SLS with an EUS could do to improve that? It's just a hypothetical... but an interesting one nonetheless.

It has come up in SLS threads.

Boeing has a Solar Probe Plus successor in some of the marketing literature that gets even closer than SP+. I forget exactly which version of SLS it uses.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/15/2015 07:56 pm
Even with multi-year contracts NASA still has to request a budget one year at a time.

NASA provides a budget request for more than one year.  The current FY 2016 President's Budget Request Summary covers FY2016 thru 2020, so that is a five year plan.

However Congress may only approve a budget one year at a time.

Quote
The number of manifested flights drove the yearly funding request of STS line item.

You may not have read the articles I linked, or understood the implications of them.  For instance, the External tank was being purchased in block buys that stretched over a 7-year period, meaning it was well beyond the budget planning horizon.

And the reason for that is cost, since buying ET's one at a time would have raised the price quite a bit, whereas doing a block buy results in big cost savings.  We don't know yet what NASA will be allowed to do once Congress authorizes NASA to start building production SLS.

Quote
It boils down to this, either NASA can answer the question of how much more money needs to be in the yearly budget request to launch a rocket or it cannot. It has been launching a rockets and requesting budgets for a while now. NASA is perfectly capable of figuring out the difference in cost between flying one SLS or two.

NASA may know some point in the future, but that doesn't mean the public will know.  And so far NASA has not released any cost information about the SLS, and is very late in doing so.

So in regards to "marginal cost", when the initial development units have not been produced and tested, and NASA has no idea what the initial number of SLS will be that Congress will authorize for procurement, there is not enough valid information to use "marginal cost" to estimate how much a production SLS will cost.

Fascinating subject, for sure, but I'll leave it at that...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/20/2015 06:23 am
You seriously think the incremental cost of the SLS is only a few hundred million dollars?

Yes.  What amazes me is that so many people seem to assume it's much higher, despite the fact that this makes no sense at all in light of the cost structure of any other rocket.  The torrent of anti-SLS propaganda, grassroots or otherwise, has done its work well.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that most SLS cost estimates are ridiculously overestimated (I think $500 Million is a little too low though). I was trying to give Rocketman a range of realistically imaginable costs.

Actually, the total cost estimates are probably in the ballpark, as long as you correct for the fact that Orion is usually lumped in.  It's just that people tend to assume that a rocket that costs (for example) $4B to launch once every two years would cost $8B to launch twice in a year, and it is this assumption that needs heading off at the pass.

There's also the effect of the modernization and cost reduction measures, which is not yet known.

Moving from one launch per year to two launches per year will almost certainly increase the annual SLS program budget by less than $500M in modern dollars, probably less than $400M, possibly less than $300M.

And in the absence of real cost numbers (which NASA is very behind on providing) comparisons to existing systems are one way to help estimate costs.
why make assumptions when facts exist?

Right, so how about that ESD Integration document (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/images/stories/SLS_budget_Integration_2011-08.pdf) I linked you?

Or this (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622582#msg622582)?

Quote
So assuming that the SLS will be the same cost as the Delta IV Heavy, or even possibly less, doesn't look right.

Apples to oranges comparison.  We're talking about the marginal cost of SLS exclusive of fixed program costs, not the total recurring cost.  And it should indeed be similar to or lower than the market price of a DIVH (let's not forget that Delta IV is pretty much the most expensive large launcher for its size in the world, significantly less cost-effective than Atlas V).

Like I said, this is only relevant if you're able to get an SLS at marginal cost but would have to pay the sticker price on a DIVH.  I have suggested the former arrangement for science missions; the latter arrangement is the reason they usually go with Atlas...

Quote
And considering that the current human rated vehicle NASA is building (i.e. Orion MPCV) is costing $8B or more, and taking 18 years until it becomes operational, I'd guess your estimates are probably a little low.

Orion is only doing this badly because the design had to mature under the continually tightening constraints imposed by Ares I.  Oh yeah, and it got outright cancelled at one point, resulting in a staffing gap; I'm sure that left its mark...  The European service module isn't helping the schedule...

Are you familiar with the Xeus concept?  I doubt NASA's $10B estimate for Altair applies to it...

Quote
Now if NASA uses existing ISS modules, then great, not much development needed.  But no real need for the SLS either, since lower cost commercial launchers can deliver them too.

Deliver them where?  This isn't about a bunch of free-floating space station modules in LEO; it's about exploring deep space.

I look at the total cost, while also breaking out the development and operational portions.  It's the only way to get a full up apples-to-apples cost, since "marginal cost" estimates are usually simplified too far

On the contrary.  It's you who's simplifying too far:

Quote
and ignore large classes of costs like overhead.

The whole point of marginal cost is that fixed costs are excluded so you can tell what the effect of a change will be.  Your method doesn't allow that, and someone who doesn't understand the difference between fixed and variable cost will get the impression that adding a flight is obscenely expensive.

Figuring out marginal cost though is not easy.  I've done a lot of digging to figure out marginal costs for the Shuttle program, and though I'm pretty good at it (I've done this for work purposes too), I was never able to use public records to figure it out.

That's funny; I had no trouble (http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-93-115)...

The marginal cost of a launch in the context of the '90s-era STS program was about $80M in modern dollars.

Quote
Marginal cost doesn't mean a lot if you don't remember how much it took to get to unit #1.

Of course not, but who could forget that?  Except that the SLS bashers insist on including Orion's costs and then neglecting to point out that they've done so; hence the $30B figure to 2021 (it also includes all the KSC work, somewhat more justifiably).

Also, a clarification may be in order.  When I say marginal cost, I don't mean the cost to add a unit to a finite production run.  I mean the cost to add a launch in an ongoing program without a clearly-defined end date, assuming there's enough infrastructure headroom to allow it.  (Since launches are usually scheduled far in advance, I model this as a marginal increase in flight rate.)  Cancelling the program early would allow NASA to save fixed costs as well as marginal costs, since they wouldn't have to keep the program running as long, but I'm not considering that scenario.

Quote
Like all hardware programs, there were pieces and parts laying around that were mismatched purchases, so sure, the last flight could have been added without writing a check for $1.5B.  But that's because the Shuttle program had over-bought, and there were pre-negoitated contracts that could be extended.  And using end-of-life costing for a program just starting out doesn't make sense.

Late in the STS program's life (but before the end-of-life drawdown started), it could do five launches per year for a little over $3B.  That's total recurring cost (not including SFS, but that wasn't specifically part of STS, which is why it's still around).  $650M per launch, give or take (or about $750M in modern dollars), and the marginal cost associated with adding or deleting flights without changing the program duration was far less than that.

Quote
there is no possible way to accurately figure out "marginal cost"

It doesn't have to be figured out to the cent.  But it can be estimated a lot more accurately than you're trying to imply, at least when the duration of the fixed-cost expenditure is not part of the estimate.  It will not cost a billion dollars to add an SLS flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2015 12:27 pm
There is no way SLS marginal costs are less than a Delta IV Heavy.  SLS has more engines, more structure, more people involved, More contracts, etc.  It will be closer to 1 billion than 500 million.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/20/2015 03:02 pm
Getting closer and closer to starting a "Why I Hate SLS" thread and telling everyone to put their unending negative comments about SLS there, so I can ignore it and actually get discussion and updates about the actual vehicle that is being built, and will fly, in the appropriately useful threads.

And I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/20/2015 03:02 pm
Here is my cost estimate

4 X SSME: 40 million each, 160 million.
2 X SS-SRB: 25 milion each, 50 million.
1 X RL10-B2: 20 milllion????

The total for propulsion systems is only 230 million. If propulsion is something like half or even most of the cost of a rocket like ULA seems to be claiming, then you can get an estimate for the hardware cost of about 500 million which seems to be in line with what NASA officials are claiming. Of course, accounting for inflation, this number will be higher in the 2020s. So, yeah, adding an SLS is probably a few hundred million more than contracting with ULA for a Delta Heavy(~400 million).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/20/2015 04:37 pm
Um.

The problem is this:
- If the production lines run at a efficient rate (3 LVs in 1.5 years) then the $500M value is probably close to reality.
- But if the production rate is 1 every 2 years then the unit costs can no longer take advantage of running the production lines efficiently at the lowest cost per unit rate causing the cost per unit to about double to nearly $1B per unit.
-  The key would for NASA to purchase SLS's in blocks of 3 to be launched in a period of 5 years. This allows the production to run at the cheaper per unit cost then the production line closes and stays dormant for the next 3.5 years until the next order. Savings would be as high as $2.5B!!!!!
- The next item is the standing army for facility and key personnel to maintain the capability to launch at such a slow rate and to  be able to reopen the production lines. This is the $800-900M per year fixed cost. This makes the per flight costs of 1 every 2 years to be $2.1B to as high as $2.8B.
- At the full production rate capability of 2 every year the per launch cost would be from $.9B to $1B or $3.6B to $4B every 2 years <$2B more for three more flights in the same period or additional budget required of $600M per flight!!!!

SLS can be run economically but only if congress allows it to do so. But at $1B for 100mt that is a high $10,000/kg vs the FH of about 1/4 that at $2,500/kg. Only justifiable if the payload will not fit or get to where it needs to go using an FH. For bulk or smaller multiple payloads it will be cheaper (much cheaper) to launch them on an FH, even if you launch them singly instead of 3 or 4 at a time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/20/2015 05:53 pm
Is a hydrogen second stage even necessarily a bad thing when you're using solids as your main thrust/first stage?

What would the performance benefits be if they used similar thrust RP1 engines on the main liquid/second stage?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/20/2015 07:36 pm
You can't assess marginal costs by adding up component prices, because those prices change with flight rate due to economies of scale.  You have to assess total program cost for multiple scenarios and compare them.  Both ESD Integration and DIRECT have done this, and I have reported their results.

(Also, IIRC SRBs were $25M per segment pair, not per booster.  Again, that's purchase price, not marginal cost.)

You also can't just "turn off" the production line, because then you have to re-hire all your workers and retrain their rusty skills (and/or hire a lot of new people and train them from scratch, since most people don't just sit around waiting for the call for 3+ years) before you can do anything.  This also seems like a good way to never work the bugs out of your production line; the launch rate is supposed to be no less than 1 per year for a reason.

The efficiency of a high production rate is simply that you get a lot of work out of your existing facilities and personnel.  Lowering the rate doesn't increase the marginal cost of a unit very much; what it does is increase that unit's share of the fixed costs.

There is no way SLS marginal costs are less than a Delta IV Heavy.  SLS has more engines, more structure, more people involved, More contracts, etc.  It will be closer to 1 billion than 500 million.

Apples to oranges.  Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost, with all fixed costs including supplier fixed costs shoved off onto the DoD...

I suppose it's possible in principle that the marginal cost could be strongly affected by optimizing production for very low flight rates, if the changes were radical enough.  But SLS is being set up for two units per year at steady state; you can only take such a scenario so far before it becomes more expensive than just using the Shuttle infrastructure as it stood, and $1B marginal cost per launch is past that point.  I don't see this as a serious possibility, not at the scale you people are talking about.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 09/20/2015 08:47 pm
Is a hydrogen second stage even necessarily a bad thing when you're using solids as your main thrust/first stage?

What would the performance benefits be if they used similar thrust RP1 engines on the main liquid/second stage?

RP-1 is the best choice there is for a first stage due to its ISP-DENSITY. You need immense amounts of thrust to fight gravity losses. With RP-1, you don't have the greatest amount of energy per Kg, but you do get the greatest amount of energy per liter (volume).

On an upper stage, ISP is king. Of all chemical engines, Hydrogen has the greatest amount of energy per Kg. At the same time, H2 takes requires a huge amount of volume to contain the fuel.

This is why Hydrogen is not a great choice in general for a first stage. In spite of the high ISP, you need ungodly volume, and the tanks to contain that volume are heavy. RP-1 is dense and the tanks can be smaller, therefore you can have a lot more fuel in the tanks. RP-1 provides the immense amount of thrust to overcome both gravity losses as well as the immense mass inertia of the full sized launch vehicle. Once you are in space, Hydrogen becomes the ideal choice (for chemical propulsion) because you have so much more energy per Kg. There are low thrust/high energy alternatives (once you are beyond LEO), that are better than Hydrogen, but they are not chemical rockets. Ion thrust using SEP (solar electric propulsion) or NEP (nuclear electric propulsion) have much higher ISP. These engines only put out a small amount of thrust per second, but over time, the total thrust they put out is far more than an equal mass of chemical propulsion. You can't use such engines at lower than orbital velocity, because they can't come even close to offsetting the opposing accelerative force of gravity. Once you are in deep space however, they are the best choice.

RP-1 would have been far better for either an SLS first stage or for its boosters, and Hydrogen is the best choice for an upper stage. SpaceX uses RP-1 on both stages, but takes performance loss in exchange for cheaper operating costs. This thread, however, is not the appropriate place to discuss any of these issues. They, in fact, have already been discussed in extreme length (think hundreds of threads and tens of thousands of posts) in other NSF forums. If you want to ask more questions, it behooves you to find those other threads, read up so that you have the necessary background knowledge, then pose any questions there. If we continue this mis-vectored tangent here, the moderators WILL delete the posts as being off-topic.

PostScript: Search for RAC-1, RAC-2, RAC-3 design.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/20/2015 09:57 pm
You also can't just "turn off" the production line, because then you have to re-hire all your workers and retrain their rusty skills (and/or hire a lot of new people and train them from scratch, since most people don't just sit around waiting for the call for 3+ years) before you can do anything.

This is the conundrum for the SLS, and really any transportation system that doesn't have an existing customer base.

Regarding the production line, it can run as slow as needed without firing and re-hiring the workers.  But that is pretty wasteful, and the only way to get around it is to have a workforce that can trained on multiple production processes so that they can build the SLS components serially.  Not cheap though.

The other part of it though is the items that are purchased, since those factories have the same production challenges.  The SRM's for sure, and likely other significant items.  Those factories have to figure out how to build at less than full production rates, and that affects costs quite a bit.

Quote
This also seems like a good way to never work the bugs out of your production line; the launch rate is supposed to be no less than 1 per year for a reason.

I know Gerstenmaier was quoted about launch cadence, and I think his quote was about the launch personnel, but to some degree it does apply to the whole production chain.

Quote
The efficiency of a high production rate is simply that you get a lot of work out of your existing facilities and personnel.  Lowering the rate doesn't increase the marginal cost of a unit very much; what it does is increase that unit's share of the fixed costs.

Lowering the production rate can affect costs very much, and what we don't know is where the cost inflection point is for SLS production.  It may not be until it reaches something like 4-6 per year (~ Shuttle rate).  NASA is quite proud of how efficient the tooling is for the SLS, which is good for touch labor costs, but overhead and other sustaining costs are going to be significant at low production rates, both for Boeing and every other major contractor for SLS.

Quote
There is no way SLS marginal costs are less than a Delta IV Heavy.  SLS has more engines, more structure, more people involved, More contracts, etc.  It will be closer to 1 billion than 500 million.

Apples to oranges.  Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost, with all fixed costs including supplier fixed costs shoved off onto the DoD...

What ULA has going for them is that they can shift personnel between different production lines, so lower Delta IV production rates don't affect marginal cost as much.  Plus they now have the Bulk Buy contract, so their procurement folks can get price breaks for buying large quantities, even though they are delivered at the same rate they've already been buying them.

It will be interesting to see what Congress allows NASA to buy in their first production lot - only buy what has missions approved, or buy based on the forecast of flying X/year, regardless if there is a payload funded yet.

Quote
I suppose it's possible in principle that the marginal cost could be strongly affected by optimizing production for very low flight rates, if the changes were radical enough.

Because the SLS is unique, and because it's being built for NASA in NASA facilities as opposed to a Boeing factory that it could share overhead and workforce with, SLS costs are going to be very high at low rates.  Not much that can be done about that.

Quote
But SLS is being set up for two units per year at steady state; you can only take such a scenario so far before it becomes more expensive than just using the Shuttle infrastructure as it stood, and $1B marginal cost per launch is past that point.  I don't see this as a serious possibility, not at the scale you people are talking about.

The Shuttle shouldn't enter into this, since it was not a comparable transportation system, despite sharing some design elements.

The key though is that no upsized transportation system should be built until the existing transportation has been maxed out, and the new system is going to provide increased capacity for a known customer demand.  That is not the SLS, and because of that it is a big gamble.  Time will tell...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2015 10:01 pm
(Also, IIRC SRBs were $25M per segment pair, not per booster.  Again, that's purchase price, not marginal cost.)

That was the cost of the SRM's and not the SRB's.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/20/2015 10:05 pm

Apples to oranges.  Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost,

No, one for one.  An additional Delta IV Heavy price would be almost pure marginal cost.   Anyways, if it isn't, it still makes the case that it is way cheaper than SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/21/2015 01:01 am
(Also, IIRC SRBs were $25M per segment pair, not per booster.  Again, that's purchase price, not marginal cost.)

That was the cost of the SRM's and not the SRB's.

As a point of reference, on a contract that ended in 2007 for 70 Shuttle SRM's their average cost was $34.3M each, or $68.6M per set.  Here is an article that talks about that contract (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=8785).

Two things to keep in mind about those cost though:

1.  The contract was a multi-year contract for 70 total SRM's, so they were able to leverage volume discounts and known work levels.

2.  This particular contract was able to leverage being a continuation of previous contracts, so the workforce was already in place and stable, the supply chain was mature, and costs were well known.

The SLS SRM's, which are 5-segment, and new designs, can only be more expensive, not less than, what the Shuttle program was paying.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/21/2015 01:15 am
So If SLS were flying dozens of times per year the incremental cost of one additional flight might not vary much, and thus there might be a useful value to call the "marginal cost." But I would expect the incremental cost of a second flight in a given year to be different than the incremental cost of a third flight in that same year.

Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/21/2015 01:49 am
So If SLS were flying dozens of times per year the incremental cost of one additional flight might not vary much, and thus there might be a useful value to call the "marginal cost." But I would expect the incremental cost of a second flight in a given year to be different than the incremental cost of a third flight in that same year.

Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?
]

Well, not dozens. They'd likely have to double or triple their manufacturing capacities. Michoud can turn out a max of 4 per year, right?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/21/2015 01:51 am

Apples to oranges.  Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost, with all fixed costs including supplier fixed costs shoved off onto the DoD...


We can determine fairly closely the marginal cost of a Delta-IV Heavy DOD launch from the 2014 block-buy since this block buy was pure marginal cost.  The Engineering, launch operations, and Infrastructure had already been paid for.  You had 36 cores purchased for $4.3 Billion, which equals about $120 Million a core so we can infer about $360 Million for the incremental cost of a Delta-IV Heavy.

So for the Delta-IV heavy you have 3xR-68A engines and a RL-10 engine. 

The SLS is 4xRS-25 engines, 2xSRB plus whatever engines are on the upper core.  There is no way that you are getting that hardware for less cost than the Delta-IV Heavy hardware.  A R-68A is less than 1/2 the price of a RS-25 engine.  NASA working with AJR might get that price down further but the RS-25 unit price is not going to get itself below the price of a RS-68A. 

Yes, all the fixed costs of the Delta-IV Heavy production are on the DOD under the current EELV contracts under FAR rules.  That is one of the price advantages when a different part of the US government procures a EELV launch vehicle.  Now that could change in the future but that is how it is currently setup.  With the FAR contracting rules that ULA operates under it has to open it's books to the US govt and justify the costs it is charging.  If certain fixed costs have already been meet by US Govt DOD contracts then ULA under law cannot double charge the US govt for those same fixed costs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/21/2015 03:32 am
Well, not dozens. They'd likely have to double or triple their manufacturing capacities. Michoud can turn out a max of 4 per year, right?

NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/21/2015 04:35 am
Well, not dozens. They'd likely have to double or triple their manufacturing capacities. Michoud can turn out a max of 4 per year, right?

NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.

I'd be really happy if we got two launches per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 09/21/2015 08:08 am
Is a hydrogen second stage even necessarily a bad thing when you're using solids as your main thrust/first stage?

What would the performance benefits be if they used similar thrust RP1 engines on the main liquid/second stage?

RP-1 is the best choice there is for a first stage due to its ISP-DENSITY.

RP-1 would have been far better for either an SLS first stage or for its boosters, and Hydrogen is the best choice for an upper stage.

- The impulse density of solid rockets is almost twice that of rp-1. Its also fairly easy to create lots of thrust with them.

- You could argue the SLS first stage a ground-lit upper stage.

We can determine fairly closely the marginal cost of a Delta-IV Heavy DOD launch from the 2014 block-buy since this block buy was pure marginal cost.  The Engineering, launch operations, and Infrastructure had already been paid for.  You had 36 cores purchased for $4.3 Billion, which equals about $120 Million a core so we can infer about $360 Million for the incremental cost of a Delta-IV Heavy.

To my knowledge the AF buys launches, not cores.


Apples to oranges.  Unless you're trying to tell me that the Delta IV Heavy price is pure marginal cost,

No, one for one.  An additional Delta IV Heavy price would be almost pure marginal cost.   Anyways, if it isn't, it still makes the case that it is way cheaper than SLS.

Well we don't know the price of an "additional" D4H, do we?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/21/2015 02:24 pm
Stay on topic guys. It gets really boring really fast when people start comparing SLS to Delta IV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/21/2015 05:59 pm
Stay on topic guys. It gets really boring really fast when people start comparing SLS to Delta IV.

The Delta-IV is the closest rocket we have to the SLS to compare cost. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/21/2015 06:03 pm

We can determine fairly closely the marginal cost of a Delta-IV Heavy DOD launch from the 2014 block-buy since this block buy was pure marginal cost.  The Engineering, launch operations, and Infrastructure had already been paid for.  You had 36 cores purchased for $4.3 Billion, which equals about $120 Million a core so we can infer about $360 Million for the incremental cost of a Delta-IV Heavy.

To my knowledge the AF buys launches, not cores.


That wording of "cores" is directly lifted from the Air Force press desk. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/21/2015 07:28 pm
NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.

I think that's the interesting "marginal cost" to look at. Assume the anticipated rate is "three every two years." What is the incremental cost to reach "four every two years?" I think this is similar to what oldAtlas_Eguy attempts to estimate, with the result of $600M.

At the full production rate capability of 2 every year the per launch cost would be from $.9B to $1B or $3.6B to $4B every 2 years <$2B more for three more flights in the same period or additional budget required of $600M per flight!!!!

I personally believe it might be less than that, and by establishing a more natural cadence of operations might decrease the total likelihood of a LOM/LOC event. And the "cost" of just one of those would be enormous!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/21/2015 08:59 pm
NASA has currently set up the production rate to support building slightly less than two per year, and with some additional funding they can get up to two per year.

I think that's the interesting "marginal cost" to look at. Assume the anticipated rate is "three every two years." What is the incremental cost to reach "four every two years?" I think this is similar to what oldAtlas_Eguy attempts to estimate, with the result of $600M.

What is missing in all these "marginal cost" estimates is the biggest factor - real cost data.  Without that it's impossible to understand what the effects are of increasing or decreasing production rates.  That's why comparisons of other launch systems, such as the Shuttle and Delta IV Heavy, are really the closest we can get today.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/22/2015 01:49 am
what the effects are of increasing or decreasing production rates.

This.

You guys aren't getting this.  You can't calculate marginal cost from expenditure breakouts.

It isn't just the primary contractor that has fixed costs and variable costs.  Every subcontractor and part supplier does too.  And if you're a substantial fraction of someone else's business, your purchase rate will strongly affect their economies of scale, changing the price of the item(s).

So the only real way to get marginal cost is to figure out how the cost/price of everything you need changes with flight rate and compare the total program costs between different scenarios.  If you do this, you will get much lower numbers than anything you could calculate directly from your actual budget.

Please note that with the EELV program, it isn't that non-DoD customers are charged incremental cost, however that's calculated.  They're charged normally, and the DoD is reimbursed for the fixed cost thus defrayed.  And apparently (http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/FINAL_SPACE_LAUNCH_BRIEFING.PDF) the amount of the reimbursement has been controversial in the past; the DoD was still complaining even after it tripled...

Quote
Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?

Sorta, yeah.  See the previously-linked chart (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622582#msg622582) from DIRECT for J-246.  Goes all the way from one flight per year to 16.  They did a bunch of these, plotting program cost or launch cost or cost per kilogram vs. flight rate for a variety of LVs.  Total costs tend to be largely fixed costs until the flight rate gets high enough, at which point variable costs (basically the stack of marginal costs on top of the fixed cost) start to dominate.  If extra infrastructure is required to go past a certain flight rate, there's a bump in the curve after that point due to the extra overhead (there'd be capital costs too, but those aren't recurring costs).

But marginal cost itself is not strongly dependent on flight rate, as long as you're within the infrastructure's capacity.  There's a bit of a learning curve, but the linked estimate shows a marginal cost of ~$320M in 2015 dollars to go from one flight per year to two, and ~$250M in 2015 dollars to go from seven flights per year to eight.

This particular contract was able to leverage being a continuation of previous contracts, so the workforce was already in place and stable, the supply chain was mature, and costs were well known.

The SLS SRM's, which are 5-segment, and new designs, can only be more expensive, not less than, what the Shuttle program was paying.

So now you're trying to lump DDT&E into the marginal cost?

The SLS boosters have been reworked for affordability.  If I recall correctly they slashed the required man-hours per segment by nearly 40%.  I'm not sure if they had to spend back some of that to solve the void issue, but it is not true that the boosters can only be more expensive in terms of either fixed or marginal cost, particularly if the manifest stabilizes and the supplier can plan ahead properly.

I would expect total prices to be higher per segment, since the flight rate is so low, but that's not marginal cost.

Quote
The efficiency of a high production rate is simply that you get a lot of work out of your existing facilities and personnel.  Lowering the rate doesn't increase the marginal cost of a unit very much; what it does is increase that unit's share of the fixed costs.
Lowering the production rate can affect costs very much, and what we don't know is where the cost inflection point is for SLS production.  It may not be until it reaches something like 4-6 per year (~ Shuttle rate).  NASA is quite proud of how efficient the tooling is for the SLS, which is good for touch labor costs, but overhead and other sustaining costs are going to be significant at low production rates, both for Boeing and every other major contractor for SLS.

That is exactly what I just said, except that you're trying to conflate marginal and total recurring costs to make me look wrong.

Quote
Quote
But SLS is being set up for two units per year at steady state; you can only take such a scenario so far before it becomes more expensive than just using the Shuttle infrastructure as it stood, and $1B marginal cost per launch is past that point.  I don't see this as a serious possibility, not at the scale you people are talking about.
The Shuttle shouldn't enter into this, since it was not a comparable transportation system, despite sharing some design elements.

You didn't read my links, did you?

The ESD Integration document contains multiple program cost estimates for an early version of SLS, based heavily on STS numbers where possible and CxP numbers where necessary.  Cases #3 and #4 finish development and set up a steady launch cadence, and Cases #4a and #4b are identical except that #4a contains an extra Block 1 launch per year (with Delta Heavy "kick stage"), which enables a direct comparison of annual budgets.  When I deflate the results using the inflation rates apparent in the data, the result is around $330M per year in modern dollars.  I think the Block 1 in question uses three main engines, so $350M is probably a better estimate for Block 1 as we know it.  Bump it up a bit for Block 1B, but don't just add parts costs because that will give you an overestimate - RL-10s are very cheap in terms of marginal cost, but AJR has to keep the doors open somehow.

The DIRECT chart I linked contains a plot of program cost vs. flight rate for a directly Shuttle-derived launch vehicle broadly comparable to SLS (J-246 = 2 cryo stages, 4xRS-25, 6xRL-10, 4-seg, unstretched core).  Just so you know (I don't imagine you're going to go look), it shows a baseline cost of just over $2B (maybe $2.06B, measuring on the image) for one launch per year, $2,348M at two per year, $2,866M at four per year, and so on up to $5,479M at 16 per year (this was before SpaceX took over 39A).  Those are 2009 dollars; multiplying by 1.123 to get 2015 dollars (NASA New Start 2014), it seems the estimate is about $320M to go from one flight per year to two.  SLS is a little bigger (more of a J-244SH (Stretched Heavy) than a J-246), so the numbers would probably be a little higher, all else being equal (all else is not equal because SLS is a modernized design without direct operational continuity).

SLS is a Shuttle-derived vehicle; it's not as directly derived as it might have been, but pretty much all the changes besides the core stretch and the extra booster segment are either directly or indirectly ops cost reductions.  As I said, it is possible that they could be trading higher marginal cost for lower fixed cost, but as I said the marginal cost can only go so high before this becomes counterproductive at the flight rate they're targeting.  Even with very low fixed costs, a marginal cost of $1B per flight (in addition to not passing the smell test) seems like it would be getting to the point where a more directly derived vehicle would have been cheaper to run at the targeted flight rate of two per year, so I don't consider that a reasonable possibility.

Quote
The key though is that no upsized transportation system should be built until the existing transportation has been maxed out, and the new system is going to provide increased capacity for a known customer demand.

NASA is not a commercial launch provider, that has to respond to customer demands.  NASA is a space agency; one of its primary goals is to explore space, and it is currently planning to attempt manned deep space exploration.  To send people up there, NASA needs a hardware-moving capability that doesn't exist in the private sector.  There are a lot of options - depots, juiced-up versions of existing LVs, maybe SEP tugs for cargo shots - but they all cost billions in DDT&E that NASA has to ask the government for, and the option that the government seems to be willing to provide those billions for is SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/22/2015 03:17 am
You guys aren't getting this.  You can't calculate marginal cost from expenditure breakouts.

Being someone that has done cost rollups, actual numbers are better than generalized high level estimates.

Quote
It isn't just the primary contractor that has fixed costs and variable costs.  Every subcontractor and part supplier does too.  And if you're a substantial fraction of someone else's business, your purchase rate will strongly affect their economies of scale, changing the price of the item(s).

I agree with that.  Which is why estimates that don't take into account flight rate, procurement lead time and buy quantities are prone to be inaccurate.  And we don't know any of those at this point.  NASA would have the best numbers, although they have not published them, but even so they don't know what Congress is going to allow them to procure on their first production buy.

Quote
Please note that with the EELV program, it isn't that non-DoD customers are charged incremental cost, however that's calculated.  They're charged normally, and the DoD is reimbursed for the fixed cost thus defrayed.  And apparently (http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/FINAL_SPACE_LAUNCH_BRIEFING.PDF) the amount of the reimbursement has been controversial in the past; the DoD was still complaining even after it tripled...

The ELC covers the launch infrastructure for USG payloads, and is a subsidy that is going away.  It was never part of the cost for the launch vehicle.

Now remember that ULA's pricing is very opaque according to the GAO, so we really don't know how they price Atlas V and Delta IV/H.  And commercial payloads would have different payload handling needs than Air Force payloads, so that cost would have to be known too.

But you and I have no idea whether ULA charges "incremental cost" or uses some other method.  We don't have insight into that, nor should we since they are a private company.

Quote
Quote
Can anyone defend talk of a single "marginal cost" value given the actual anticipated flight rate?

Sorta, yeah.  See the previously-linked chart (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622582#msg622582) from DIRECT for J-246.  Goes all the way from one flight per year to 16.

I can appreciate the detailed work the DIRECT folks did, but their assumptions were based on the continued use of the Shuttle supply chain.  The Shuttle supply chain ended, so the SLS can't leverage that, even for the SRM's.  Plus the SLS is a completely different design, which greatly affects projected costs.

Quote
But marginal cost itself is not strongly dependent on flight rate.

Of course it is.  Maybe because I've been directly involved with defining production schedules and procurement buying decisions I understand this better than most.  There is a unique cost associated with every single part, and it is affected by your consumption rate (i.e. flight rate) and how much (and how often) you are buying for each part.  Those are major cost drivers for suppliers, as well as Boeing who is doing fabrication and final assembly.

Quote
This particular contract was able to leverage being a continuation of previous contracts, so the workforce was already in place and stable, the supply chain was mature, and costs were well known.

The SLS SRM's, which are 5-segment, and new designs, can only be more expensive, not less than, what the Shuttle program was paying.

So now you're trying to lump DDT&E into the marginal cost?

My comment was related to the supply chain.  You do realize that suppliers won't keep worker sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for an SLS-related order to come in, right?  So they may have to train new workers or retrain prior workers on how to build SLS-related parts that are ordered infrequently.  That is added to the procurement price, since it a cost NASA has to bear, not the supplier.

Quote
The SLS boosters have been reworked for affordability.  If I recall correctly they slashed the required man-hours per segment by nearly 40%.

Yes, finally after 135 flights ATK suddenly gets concerned about cost...

Look, if the SLS only flies once per year, then only 10 segments are needed per year.  And now that they are so much more efficient those same workers will be reassigned to work on something else for most of the year - or not, depending on whether their skills and work location allows that.  Those are pricing factors that are unknown at this point because we don't know what the flight rate is, and how many SLS NASA will be allowed to buy for, and what NASA will want for a delivery schedule.

Quote
Quote
The key though is that no upsized transportation system should be built until the existing transportation has been maxed out, and the new system is going to provide increased capacity for a known customer demand.

NASA is not a commercial launch provider, that has to respond to customer demands.

NASA has no institutional skills for being a launch provider of any kind, and with the SLS they will have internal customers that they will have to respond to.  Which is why NASA should not be in the launch business.  The private sector, which was never asked, could have responded to any needs they had.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/22/2015 04:25 am
I can appreciate the detailed work the DIRECT folks did, but their assumptions were based on the continued use of the Shuttle supply chain.  The Shuttle supply chain ended, so the SLS can't leverage that, even for the SRM's.  Plus the SLS is a completely different design, which greatly affects projected costs.

Handwaving.  Am I supposed to assume that "greatly affects projected costs" means "triples the marginal cost of a launch"?

SLS is not a "completely different design".  It's an inline Shuttle-derived launch vehicle that's actually quite similar to Jupiter, but a little bigger, with modernizations and cost reductions.  You can't pretend Delta IV is a closer analogue than Jupiter.

Or didn't you notice that the marginal cost off the J-246 plot from 2009 is almost identical to the marginal cost I backed out of the ESD Integration SLS estimates from 2011?

Quote
There is a unique cost associated with every single part, and it is affected by your consumption rate (i.e. flight rate) and how much (and how often) you are buying for each part.  Those are major cost drivers for suppliers, as well as Boeing who is doing fabrication and final assembly.

I just got through saying exactly that, except that I'm not trying to redefine "marginal cost" to mean "purchase price".  (Admittedly, I have had disagreements over terminology before, but it should be pretty obvious what I mean by this point.)

All that consumption rate dependency is due largely (not entirely, but in the main) to fixed cost; you buy less of something, or buy more sporadically, and the supplier's overhead becomes a bigger portion of the total, so the price per unit goes up.  This is a particularly strong effect if you're the sole customer for an item, since you have to eat the supplier's entire fixed cost regardless of how many you buy.  But it doesn't matter whose fixed cost it is; it's still fixed cost.

If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly.  That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2015 05:37 am
the marginal cost off the J-246 plot from 2009 is almost identical to the marginal cost I backed out of the ESD Integration SLS estimates from 2011

OK, that's impressive for sure.

Quote
If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly.  That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.

FWIW I'm kind of convinced.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/22/2015 06:20 am
For what its worth, I crunched some numbers on SLS Block II costs using the NASA cost estimator. Per vehicle costs (not including development cost) with solid boosters was $680M to $810M and with liquid boosters it was $1.3B to $1.5B.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/pub/SLS-Moon-200715.pdf
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 09/22/2015 01:44 pm
What payload increase would the proposed liquid boosters give over solids?  Is the increase worth the cost increase? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/22/2015 07:37 pm

All that consumption rate dependency is due largely (not entirely, but in the main) to fixed cost; you buy less of something, or buy more sporadically, and the supplier's overhead becomes a bigger portion of the total, so the price per unit goes up.  This is a particularly strong effect if you're the sole customer for an item, since you have to eat the supplier's entire fixed cost regardless of how many you buy.  But it doesn't matter whose fixed cost it is; it's still fixed cost.

If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly.  That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.

I cannot argue with this point about fixed cost and marginal cost to increase the number of flights.  Based on what you are showing in your graphs, the Jupiter-246 showed a marginal cost of ~320 Million and you expect the SLS to be in the same range?  Since the SLS is also Shuttle derived hardware. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/22/2015 08:00 pm
SLS is not a "completely different design".  It's an inline Shuttle-derived launch vehicle that's actually quite similar to Jupiter, but a little bigger, with modernizations and cost reductions.

In manufacturing it's pretty black and white.  Either something is the same, or it's different.

The SLS is not a stretched Shuttle ET.  Other than the diameter of the SLS 1st stage, the Shuttle ET and the SLS 1st stage are of different designs, which makes sense since they have completely different load paths (i.e. side mount vs top loading).  Even the SRM's are completely different.  Plus the Shuttle didn't have a 2nd stage, so that is all new.

I think you need to read up on what the manufacturing challenges are for the SLS to better appreciate how different the SLS is from the Shuttle.  Here is one article to read:

SLS takes on new buckling standards, drops Super Light alloy (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/) | NASASpaceFlight.com

Quote
You can't pretend Delta IV is a closer analogue than Jupiter.

We have real prices for Delta IV/H, we don't have any real prices for Jupiter.  I know you feel paper studies will yield perfect information, the reality is that they don't represent reality, and reality could be higher and it could be lower in cost.

Quote
I just got through saying exactly that, except that I'm not trying to redefine "marginal cost" to mean "purchase price".

The cost of buying material is an important part of determining "marginal cost".  However as I've shown with the Shuttle program, determining "marginal cost" from public sources is not easy because of the various procurement decisions that are made based on lead times, lot quantities, risk, and many other factors that don't get articulated to the public.

Quote
If you actually plot the total program cost vs. flight rate for a large launcher program with a reasonably well-defined launch schedule, the slope changes fairly slowly.  That slope is the marginal cost I'm talking about.

Just because they intercept doesn't mean they are accurate.  We'll have to wait until Congress allows NASA to buy SLS production material before we find out what the real prices are.  But until then, based on using common sense and rough orders of magnitude, the SLS is going to be significantly more expensive than a $400M Delta IV Heavy - there is no way it can be close to the same or less.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/22/2015 08:22 pm
Based on what you are showing in your graphs, the Jupiter-246 showed a marginal cost of ~320 Million and you expect the SLS to be in the same range?  Since the SLS is also Shuttle derived hardware.

Basically, yeah.

The leaked ESD Integration document (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/images/stories/SLS_budget_Integration_2011-08.pdf) from 2011 seems to back me up.  Cases #4a and #4b have a few years at the end where development is over and the launch rate is steady (and plainly continues well into the future); aside from the "In Space Elements Wedge", the only difference is that #4a has an extra "70-ton" SLS launch every year (this vehicle seems to include a Delta Heavy upper stage).  The cost difference, summing SLS and ground systems, is $414M in 2023, $426M in 2024, and $437M in 2025.

The inflation rate in NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) is 2.6% from 2012 to the end of the table, except for 2013 and 2017 in which it is 2.7%.  This matches nicely with the rate of inflation apparent in the ESD Integration data.  Using NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) to deflate to 2011 and NASA New Start 2014 (use in FY15) to inflate it back to 2015 results in a marginal cost in modern dollars of about $330M.

$330M is pretty darn close to $320M considering the differences between the two vehicle designs, and the fact that one is measured off a graph and inflated by six years, while the other is deflated by fourteen years and reinflated by four...

Considering how close the deflated fixed costs are to the DIRECT estimate, as well as the fact that the estimates are explicitly said to be based on STS and CxP, I suspect there wasn't much modernization or cost reduction in the numbers.  If this is true, the actual vehicle should end up less expensive overall on an ongoing basis, though not necessarily on a marginal basis.


@Coastal Ron:  I never said the SLS estimates were perfect, or that much (or indeed any) of the design was identical to anything in the old Shuttle stack.  But neither of those things needs to be true for estimates based on the old technology to be useful in getting a rough idea of what the new technology might cost.  Sure, it's possible for a rash of slight design changes to cause the cost of an item to skyrocket, but intelligent engineers don't do that, and intelligent project managers don't let the dumb engineers do it either.

The major tech changes are all cost-reduction measures.  They're not going to cause the marginal cost to triple.

As for the Delta IV comparison...  I don't see why I should have to respond further.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2015 08:24 pm
We'll have to wait until Congress allows NASA to buy SLS production material before we find out what the real prices are. 

Are you seriously suggesting the cost of aluminum is significant in the incremental cost of one more SLS flight?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/22/2015 08:42 pm
Based on what you are showing in your graphs, the Jupiter-246 showed a marginal cost of ~320 Million and you expect the SLS to be in the same range?  Since the SLS is also Shuttle derived hardware.

Basically, yeah.

The leaked ESD Integration document (http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/images/stories/SLS_budget_Integration_2011-08.pdf) from 2011 seems to back me up.  Cases #4a and #4b have a few years at the end where development is over and the launch rate is steady (and plainly continues well into the future); aside from the "In Space Elements Wedge", the only difference is that #4a has an extra "70-ton" SLS launch every year.  The cost difference, summing SLS and ground systems, is $414M in 2023, $426M in 2024, and $437M in 2025.

The inflation rate in NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) is 2.6% from 2012 to the end of the table, except for 2013 and 2017 in which it is 2.7%.  This matches nicely with the rate of inflation apparent in the ESD Integration data.  Using NASA New Start 2010 (use in FY11) to deflate to 2011 and NASA New Start 2014 (use in FY15) to inflate it back to 2015 results in a difference of about $330M.

$330M is pretty darn close to $320M considering the differences between the two vehicle designs, and the fact that one is measured off a graph and inflated by six years, while the other is deflated by fourteen years and reinflated by four...

Considering how close the deflated fixed costs are to the DIRECT estimate, as well as the fact that the estimates are explicitly said to be based on STS and CxP, I suspect there wasn't much modernization or cost reduction in the numbers.  If this is true, the actual vehicle should end up less expensive overall on an ongoing basis, though not necessarily on a marginal basis.

I cannot argue with that reasoning.  The difference that I keep forgetting between the SLS and Delta-IV is that the majority of the hardware development cost was paid for by Boeing and they charge a margin to make back that development cost above the normal hardware cost.  Which is perfectly reasonable.  The major components of the SLS are being developed and paid for using government funds.  Even the factory from the main booster tank is government facility, the transport vehicles are government vehicles.  We will see what the actual costs are once the flight program starts.  However you have made a sound argument for a marginal cost of around ~$320 Million,  I stand corrected.     
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/22/2015 08:50 pm
Well, with design differences and tech changes and the optimization of production for a low flight rate, there's probably a good deal of wiggle room in that number.

Personally, I think a full-up Block 1B should have a marginal cost to go from one flight per year to two of somewhere between $300M and $400M.  Higher and lower are both possible.  But I would be very surprised if it got up near $1B; that seems downright unreasonable...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/22/2015 08:54 pm
Well, with design differences and tech changes and the optimization of production for a low flight rate, there's probably a good deal of wiggle room in that number.

Personally, I think a full-up Block 1B should have a marginal cost to go from one flight per year to two of somewhere between $300M and $400M.  Higher and lower are both possible.  But I would be very surprised if it got up near $1B; that seems downright unreasonable...

Well what will happen is if the fixed costs are $2 Billion for 1-flight and 2-flights are $2.4 Billion then it will be reported that each launch costs $1.2 Billion.  Just like the B-2 Bomber is quoted as costing $2 Billion per plane when at the end of the Production run, the incremental cost of adding another air-frame to the production run was ~$500 Million.  A couple of months ago during one of the Assured Access to Space hearings, the subject of using SLS for DOD launches was brought up by one of the Committee members but the USAF shot it down fairly quickly.  However ULA has stated that after they retire the Delta-IV medium, keeping the production line open for just the Delta-IV Heavy would result in a "significant" increase in price.  Which based on the models you present, a SLS Block-1B would be very price competitive against a Delta-IV heavy.       

To bad NASA cannot due a multi-year procurement block-buy of the SLS-Block 1B.  I would suspect that this would save even more money per LV.  However that would also mean that actual missions are also funded for the SLS.  Instead Congress likes to keep a tight rein on the purse strings, year to year.   
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/22/2015 09:47 pm
Well what will happen is if the fixed costs are $2 Billion for 1-flight and 2-flights are $2.4 Billion then it will be reported that each launch costs $1.2 Billion.  Just like the B-2 Bomber is quoted as costing $2 Billion per plane when at the end of the Production run, the incremental cost of adding another air-frame to the production run was ~$500 Million.

That is exactly why I keep bringing up marginal cost.  I've seen people claim that "the SLS flight rate is so low because it costs $xB per flight"...  No, it only costs that much per flight because the flight rate is so low.

Quote
ULA has stated that after they retire the Delta-IV medium, keeping the production line open for just the Delta-IV Heavy would result in a "significant" increase in price.  Which based on the models you present, a SLS Block-1B would be very price competitive against a Delta-IV heavy.

That would seem to depend on what "significant" means, and on how much the SLS program can reduce overhead/infrastructure costs with tech enhancements and right-sizing; even now we don't know what effect the affordability effort has had.  The unimproved Shuttle-based SLS fixed cost is pretty high, and at two flights per year it would dominate the launch cost.

I can kinda see the HEOMD being convinced to sell launches to the SMD for marginal cost, but doing the same for the DoD seems a bit of a stretch.  Maybe - back in the day Shuttle launches were sold to all comers for marginal cost, which was about 1/10 of total recurring cost...

Also keep in mind that unlike Jupiter, SLS is being set up for a manufacturing rate of two per year (launch can do up to three per year by accumulating hardware first).  Going beyond that will require additional infrastructure investments.  I mean, I really hope the outlook improves enough that it gets done, but if not it might be a hurdle...

...yes, I do expect a significant reduction in fixed cost.  Advanced infrastructure capable of a small fraction of the Shuttle production rate should cost a heck of a lot less than the legacy infrastructure would have...
...

(BTW from that quote it sounds like there are indeed fixed costs in EELV prices.)

Quote
To bad NASA cannot due a multi-year procurement block-buy of the SLS-Block 1B.  I would suspect that this would save even more money per LV.  However that would also mean that actual missions are also funded for the SLS.  Instead Congress likes to keep a tight rein on the purse strings, year to year.

The numbers I've been using assume a steady launch rate and thus, I presume, a fairly predictable multi-year procurement schedule.  You can actually see something like this happening in the ESD Integration document, as costs start to diverge between the cases in 2016 (for ground systems) and 2017 (for SLS proper) even though the first "extra" launch is in 2022.

On the other hand, SLS can't launch less often than once per year or more often (as matters stand) than twice per year on average, and if the thing survives long enough to get to that point I don't expect the manifest to be quite as ethereal as it is now.  I don't see any reason why they couldn't run it more or less like they ran Shuttle once it gets going.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/23/2015 08:32 am
What payload increase would the proposed liquid boosters give over solids?  Is the increase worth the cost increase?

The solids had better performance since they needed to use a core with five or six RS-25E engines in order to get above 130 t. Detailed information below:

RSRMV/6xRS-25E Core/2xJ-2X LUS = 137.0 t
Dark Knights/5xRS-25E Core/2xJ-2X LUS = 144.1 t
2xF-1B Boosters/4xRS-25E Core/2xJ-2X LUS = 133.2 t
3xAJ1E6 Boosters/4xRS-25E Core/2xJ-2 LUS = 136.2 t
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 09/23/2015 01:19 pm
I see you have the Dark Knights with 5 RS25E core.  What would that size core do with the F1's or AJ1E6's or even 6 like the RSRMV version?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/23/2015 05:53 pm
[


That would seem to depend on what "significant" means, and on how much the SLS program can reduce overhead/infrastructure costs with tech enhancements and right-sizing; even now we don't know what effect the affordability effort has had.  The unimproved Shuttle-based SLS fixed cost is pretty high, and at two flights per year it would dominate the launch cost.

I can kinda see the HEOMD being convinced to sell launches to the SMD for marginal cost, but doing the same for the DoD seems a bit of a stretch.  Maybe - back in the day Shuttle launches were sold to all comers for marginal cost, which was about 1/10 of total recurring cost...

Also keep in mind that unlike Jupiter, SLS is being set up for a manufacturing rate of two per year (launch can do up to three per year by accumulating hardware first).  Going beyond that will require additional infrastructure investments.  I mean, I really hope the outlook improves enough that it gets done, but if not it might be a hurdle...


...

(BTW from that quote it sounds like there are indeed fixed costs in EELV prices.)



On the other hand, SLS can't launch less often than once per year or more often (as matters stand) than twice per year on average, and if the thing survives long enough to get to that point I don't expect the manifest to be quite as ethereal as it is now.  I don't see any reason why they couldn't run it more or less like they ran Shuttle once it gets going.

With just keeping the Delta-IV Heavy in production, ULA has said that there would be considerable cost for each launch.  Usually it seems the USAF has only about 1-payload a year that requires the Delta-IV Heavy.  If ULA needs to maintain the Production Line and two launch facilities for one launch a year we could see fairly substantial fixed costs for just one launch.  I could imagine the pricing for a single launch a year going at $1 Billion for all that support structure.  As you have shown, the projected cost of a single SLS each year is about $2 Billion.  At that pricing using the SLS, since you have a smaller incremental cost would seem to be the best thing.  Even if you just accept that you might be launching a 20-ton Satellite on a vehicle capable of 70+ tons of performance.  For Polar Orbits I wonder if the SLS could perform a "dog-leg" maneuver from the Cape and just take the performance hit? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/23/2015 11:14 pm




With just keeping the Delta-IV Heavy in production, ULA has said that there would be considerable cost for each launch.  Usually it seems the USAF has only about 1-payload a year that requires the Delta-IV Heavy.  If ULA needs to maintain the Production Line and two launch facilities for one launch a year we could see fairly substantial fixed costs for just one launch.  I could imagine the pricing for a single launch a year going at $1 Billion for all that support structure.  As you have shown, the projected cost of a single SLS each year is about $2 Billion.  At that pricing using the SLS, since you have a smaller incremental cost would seem to be the best thing.  Even if you just accept that you might be launching a 20-ton Satellite on a vehicle capable of 70+ tons of performance.  For Polar Orbits I wonder if the SLS could perform a "dog-leg" maneuver from the Cape and just take the performance hit?

Not going to happen for many reasons. ULA is already consolidating products. Vulcan should be cheaper as well as FH. No payload that size could come online fast enough. NASA is forbidden from competing with the private sector. Polar orbits are usually done out of Vandenberg for reasons of safety.

The only missions SLS can have are manned missions that are impossible to do with commercial crew or cargo or government missions unable to use commercial launchers and one would have to wonder what extra costs and delays doing this would add.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 02:19 am




With just keeping the Delta-IV Heavy in production, ULA has said that there would be considerable cost for each launch.  Usually it seems the USAF has only about 1-payload a year that requires the Delta-IV Heavy.  If ULA needs to maintain the Production Line and two launch facilities for one launch a year we could see fairly substantial fixed costs for just one launch.  I could imagine the pricing for a single launch a year going at $1 Billion for all that support structure.  As you have shown, the projected cost of a single SLS each year is about $2 Billion.  At that pricing using the SLS, since you have a smaller incremental cost would seem to be the best thing.  Even if you just accept that you might be launching a 20-ton Satellite on a vehicle capable of 70+ tons of performance.  For Polar Orbits I wonder if the SLS could perform a "dog-leg" maneuver from the Cape and just take the performance hit?

Not going to happen for many reasons. ULA is already consolidating products. Vulcan should be cheaper as well as FH. No payload that size could come online fast enough. NASA is forbidden from competing with the private sector. Polar orbits are usually done out of Vandenberg for reasons of safety.

The only missions SLS can have are manned missions that are impossible to do with commercial crew or cargo or government missions unable to use commercial launchers and one would have to wonder what extra costs and delays doing this would add.

NASA is not forbidden from competing with the private sector.  Where are you getting that idea from? 

Yes, Polar Orbits are done usually out of Vandenberg for reasons of safety.  However high inclination orbits have been done out of the Cape by using a "dog-leg" trajectory.  Satellite launches have occurred using this maneuver to launch satellites to a inclination of 101-degrees.  These maneuver results in a reduction of vehicle performance but the SLS flying a DOD satellite wouldn't be flying anywhere near its maximum capability.

You can also reference this article from August about adapting SLS to fly additional payloads - http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 02:58 am
1.  NASA is not forbidden from competing with the private sector.  Where are you getting that idea from? 

2.  However high inclination orbits have been done out of the Cape by using a "dog-leg" trajectory. y



1.  Yes, it is.   Commercial Space Act.

2.  Only on a couple of occasions, and it required a 3 stage Delta vs a two stage.  And it wasn't really a dog leg, it was plane change much like for GSO sats.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 04:54 am


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)

Yes they are building an payload adapter in case they want to carry something other than Orion, but that something is very debatable as just about nothing has been funded.  The short of the Commercial Space Act is that if any private launch provider can do the mission then NASA must use it. This is an reversal of pre-Challenger NASA policy and the problems attempting to use the shuttle as the sole launch vechile. This is what makes Orbital, Space X, and ULA possible and what got NASA out of the business of launching communication sats and many probes.

The Air force handed responsibility to launch over to it's contractors and private space was born. Those contractors eventually merged into ULA.  This is part of the reason why ULA has both Delta(Boeing) and Atlas(LM). The payload would have to be too large(or something) for either Vulcan or FH to carry in order for SLS to be viable.

Lifting an 20 ton payload could be done by either, it just might not be able to be lifted into as high an orbit but if it falls into the range they can lift it can be done. The military which has much more political pull than NASA has not pushed for higher payload capacities than currently offered and likely would choose FH or Vulcan if they ever needed an bigger payload.

Polar Orbits from Florida present safety issues and would never be done as an matter of course. (i.e. For some reason the payload couldn't go out of Vandenberg).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/24/2015 05:15 am




http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)

Yes they are building an payload adapter in case they want to carry something other than Orion, but that something is very debatable as just about nothing has been funded.  The short of the Commercial Space Act is that if any private launch provider can do the mission then NASA must use it.

Would NASA have use Vulcan even though the payload may require distributed launch which would add a higher risk factor compared to SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/24/2015 05:16 am
That would seem to depend on what "significant" means, and on how much the SLS program can reduce overhead/infrastructure costs with tech enhancements and right-sizing

Reduce?  NASA is a government entity, not a commercial one, they don't know how to reduce costs on a new product.  As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this?  NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.

Quote
...even now we don't know what effect the affordability effort has had.

You keep talking about this like there is some unseen effort to significantly reduce costs.  Unless you can point it out in statements NASA or Boeing has made, it's not there.  They have built the production processes, and their costs are locked in.  As a data point, in an article SpaceNews has with the outgoing SLS Program Manager (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/) they state:

"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."

This is low-rate production, and it's highly unusual to make significant changes to the production processes after pre-production (SLS-1 & SLS-2), and if they do it's because of problems that they will have found.

Quote
...yes, I do expect a significant reduction in fixed cost.  Advanced infrastructure capable of a small fraction of the Shuttle production rate should cost a heck of a lot less than the legacy infrastructure would have...

I think you've been listening to the NASA PR machine too much.

First of all the Shuttle manufacturing system built their tooling for relatively high volume.  The SLS is a different manufacturing design with different manufacturing processes, and it has a much lower production volume.  Plus that 1st stage is HUGE - there are only so many ways to bend metal that big.

Costs are locked in for building two SLS per year, so it would have to go up quite a bit to merit a significant investment in cost reduction technologies.  Maybe being authorized for a Mars program will merit that size of an investment, but we'll have to wait for that to happen.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 05:45 am





Would NASA have use Vulcan even though the payload may require distributed launch which would add a higher risk factor compared to SLS.

That I don't know. I do know that if Vulcan can demonstrate distributed launch on an mission, NASA will be in an tougher(but far from impossible) position to justify SLS over it. There could be reasons like Vulcan can't lift the Payload in one piece or issues of time. Basically the more and more capable the Private sector becomes the harder and harder it gets for an Government owned rocket to find an mission. ULA would have motive and reason to push an lawsuit if distributed launch was equally capable of doing it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/24/2015 09:00 am
I see you have the Dark Knights with 5 RS25E core.  What would that size core do with the F1's or AJ1E6's or even 6 like the RSRMV version?

I never simulated those versions as I was only interested in the minimum configuration that got over 130 t. Nevertheless, I would expect significant payload increases with a five or six engine core.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 11:22 am


http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/08/usa-adapt-sls-additional-payloads/)

Yes they are building an payload adapter in case they want to carry something other than Orion, but that something is very debatable as just about nothing has been funded.  The short of the Commercial Space Act is that if any private launch provider can do the mission then NASA must use it. This is an reversal of pre-Challenger NASA policy and the problems attempting to use the shuttle as the sole launch vechile. This is what makes Orbital, Space X, and ULA possible and what got NASA out of the business of launching communication sats and many probes.

The Air force handed responsibility to launch over to it's contractors and private space was born. Those contractors eventually merged into ULA.  This is part of the reason why ULA has both Delta(Boeing) and Atlas(LM). The payload would have to be too large(or something) for either Vulcan or FH to carry in order for SLS to be viable.

Lifting an 20 ton payload could be done by either, it just might not be able to be lifted into as high an orbit but if it falls into the range they can lift it can be done. The military which has much more political pull than NASA has not pushed for higher payload capacities than currently offered and likely would choose FH or Vulcan if they ever needed an bigger payload.

Polar Orbits from Florida present safety issues and would never be done as an matter of course. (i.e. For some reason the payload couldn't go out of Vandenberg).

I understand about the Commercial Space Act.  What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part.  If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen.  During Congressional testimony the subject of using the SLS to bridge any launch capability gaps has been brought up. 

Ok, what you are saying about the Commercial Space Act would imply that if a Commercial Entity develops a comparable vehicle to the SLS that is cost-effective then NASA would have to use it.  Is that true? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 12:54 pm
I understand about the Commercial Space Act.  What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part.  If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen. 

DIV isn't going to be over 1 billion and SLS incremental is going to be more than $500 million.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 01:04 pm
I understand about the Commercial Space Act.  What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part.  If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen. 

DIV isn't going to be over 1 billion and SLS incremental is going to be more than $500 million.

The point is Jim is that there is enough exceptions in the Commercial Space Act to allow the acquisition of Space Transportation Services from a government launch vehicle even if a commercial provider could provide those services.  This act wouldn't prohibit the launching of a DOD payload on the SLS. 

Quote
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
(1) a payload requires the unique capabilities of the Space Shuttle;
(2) cost effective space transportation services that meet specific mission requirements would not be reasonably available from United States commercial providers when required;
(3) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers poses an unacceptable risk of loss of a unique scientific opportunity;
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
(5) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with international agreements for international collaborative efforts relating to science and technology;
(6) it is more cost effective to transport a payload in conjunction with a test or demonstration of a space transportation vehicle owned by the Federal Government; or
(7) a payload can make use of the available cargo space on a Space Shuttle mission as a secondary payload, and such payload is consistent with the requirements of research, development, demonstration, scientific, commercial, and educational programs authorized by the Administrator. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Administrator from planning or negotiating agreements with foreign entities for the launch of Federal Government payloads for international collaborative efforts relating to science and technology.
(c) Delayed Effect.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to space transportation services and space transportation vehicles acquired or owned by the Federal Government before the date of the enactment of this Act, or with respect to which a contract for such acquisition or ownership has been entered into before such date.
(d) Historical Purposes.--This section shall not be construed to prohibit the Federal Government from acquiring, owning, or maintaining space transportation vehicles solely for historical display purposes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/24/2015 01:05 pm
I understand about the Commercial Space Act.  What you are leaving out is the cost-effective part.  If the choice is procuring Delta-IV Heavy's at launch price's of over $1 Billion or procuring a SLS at a incremental price of less than $ 500 Million then the SLS could be chosen. 

DIV isn't going to be over 1 billion and SLS incremental is going to be more than $500 million.
The latter is an assumption Jim. There will be no such thing as an incremental price for SLS if it never flies.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 02:05 pm
This act wouldn't prohibit the launching of a DOD payload on the SLS. 

True, but the DOD would prohibit it.  They will never get in bed with NASA on a NASA launch vehicle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 02:30 pm
This act wouldn't prohibit the launching of a DOD payload on the SLS. 

True, but the DOD would prohibit it.  They will never get in bed with NASA on a NASA launch vehicle.

Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled.  However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress.  Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 03:01 pm

Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled.  However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress.  Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. 

Nonsense.  Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place.  DOD would drag their feet anyway.  DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up.  DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 09/24/2015 03:44 pm
I hadn't seen this statement that Coastal Ron posted:

"As a data point, in an article SpaceNews has with the outgoing SLS Program Manager they state:

"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.""

I was under the impression that the current budget would produce almost 1 and a half flyable SLS vehicles a year. That statement says only 1 without a large increase in the budget.

So, under the current budget, only 1 per year?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 03:53 pm

Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled.  However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress.  Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. 

Nonsense.  Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place.  DOD would drag their feet anyway.  DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up.  DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.

ULA has already stated that they will phase out all DIV launches by 2018 except for DIVH.  On average the DIVH has only averaged about one launch a year.  This would mean that all the year over year costs for the DIVH production line and launch facility costs will have be amortized by ULA for this single yearly, DIVH launch.  This will have a large impact on the DIVH launch cost's, which are already about $400 Million.  This is why I think launch costs for the DIVH could soar approaching $1Billion.  Of course this would mean the DIVH would in no way be competitive with the FH (Once the FH gets EELV certification).  If ULA cannot get launch contracts for the DIVH they are going to shutdown the production line, regardless of the status of the Vulcan.

In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online. 

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/24/2015 04:34 pm

Very true, the DOD would be less than thrilled.  However if Congress directed funding for the DOD to procure a National Security launch on the SLS, the DOD couldn't say No to Congress.  Especially if Congress perceives a need for a backup to the FH and the DIVH production line is shutdown for the switchover to the Vulcan LV. 

Nonsense.  Congress isn't going to do that since they wouldn't know why it would be needed in the first place.  DOD would drag their feet anyway.  DIVH doesn't have a backup now anyways, so why would it need a backup to a back up.  DIVH is not shutting down until Vulcan can handle the missions.

ULA has already stated that they will phase out all DIV launches by 2018 except for DIVH.  On average the DIVH has only averaged about one launch a year.  This would mean that all the year over year costs for the DIVH production line and launch facility costs will have be amortized by ULA for this single yearly, DIVH launch.  This will have a large impact on the DIVH launch cost's, which are already about $400 Million.  This is why I think launch costs for the DIVH could soar approaching $1Billion.  Of course this would mean the DIVH would in no way be competitive with the FH (Once the FH gets EELV certification).  If ULA cannot get launch contracts for the DIVH they are going to shutdown the production line, regardless of the status of the Vulcan.

In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.
We are getting sidetracked.

The DIVH will share initially the 5m tank production line with Vulcan thereby reducing both vehicles costs while they are both in the low quantity mode. Vulcan because its is in early developmental test and flights. Once it goes operational and the build rate increases, that would be a good time to discontinue (or slightly before) DIVH. Note this would happen 2 years in advance of Vulcan going operational.

Since the AF policy for having redundant LV's to launch payloads is a policy and not a requirement, having a backup to the DIVH or even the FH which could replace the DIVH's position in launching these very heavy 20mt ppayloads is not a requirement for the AF such that they would spend a lot of money for little gain.

It took >$150M to certify the F9. To certify the SLS for DOD payloads, although some shortcuts can be done since it has such a high level of oversight from NASA, will be definitely more costly than certifying the F9 because it is a very complex vehicle and will not have a standard configuration until after 2021. Yhis means that it could not even be considered for DOD use until after the second flight which could occur as late as 2023 by which time Vulcan with ACES will be flying.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 04:39 pm
use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online. 


Never will happen
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 04:40 pm

It took >$150M to certify the F9. To certify the SLS for DOD payloads,

There is no need for SLS certification.  It is a gov't vehicle and not a commercial one.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 05:53 pm


In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.

Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.

Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS.  Those exceptions are for specific purposes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 06:07 pm


In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.

Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.

Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS.  Those exceptions are for specific purposes.

This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays.  ULA doesn't even have the  commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan.  They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding. 

If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 

Quote
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 06:13 pm


In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.

Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.

Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS.  Those exceptions are for specific purposes.

This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays.  ULA doesn't even have the  commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan.  They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding. 

If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 

Quote
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;

Delta Heavy won't go offline until Vulcan is online, so won't apply and Congress would be getting into to same mess it did back in the 80ies with respect to the Shuttle. Taking payloads away from the private sector is not an wise move for either the exploration of space or national security.  There is no need to use SLS as back up to Vulcan or FH. The smarter, cheaper and less politically dangerous move would just be to wait until Vulcan is online.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 06:31 pm

If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 


Congress isn't going to make that choice, it would be up the DOD and as stated before, they would not do it.

SLS doesn't have a VAFB launch capability and what was done with a few Delta flights in the 60's/70's out of the east coast is not applicable. The spacecraft are too large.   The DOD also requires payload installation and access at the pad, which SLS can not support. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 09/24/2015 07:11 pm
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 

Quote
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
As Jim alluded to, the law states that the determination would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force:
Quote
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
.
.
.
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
(My emphasis.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 07:28 pm


In my opinion, Congress would be forced to either; pay money to ULA to keep launch capability for DIVH, accept that FH is the only vehicle that can meet the full range of DOD payloads until Vulcan is in service, or use the SLS as a backup to the FH for DOD launches until the Vulcan is online.

Note quite. Vulcan is planned to be online in 2019(1 year after SLS). FH will compete with Atlas and Delta from about 2016-2018. Delta is phased out in 2018,which allows plenty of time for planning and transitioning. Vulcan is up by about 2020/2019. There is hardly any gap. FH isn't the only vehicle that can meet the the full range of payloads unless relations with the Russians get much worse. Atlas launches most payloads with Delta only handling the largest.

Congress can not be forced to do anything by AF policy. However ULA and Space X could sue if an payload that they could launch is put on SLS.  Those exceptions are for specific purposes.

This assumes the Vulcan Development proceeds without any problems/delays.  ULA doesn't even have the  commitment from Boeing and LM for full funding for development of the Vulcan.  They are going quarter by quarter right now for funding. 

If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 

Quote
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;

Delta Heavy won't go offline until Vulcan is online, so won't apply and Congress would be getting into to same mess it did back in the 80ies with respect to the Shuttle. Taking payloads away from the private sector is not an wise move for either the exploration of space or national security.  There is no need to use SLS as back up to Vulcan or FH. The smarter, cheaper and less politically dangerous move would just be to wait until Vulcan is online.

If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online?  Without any launch contracts who is paying for that? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 09/24/2015 07:33 pm
If you look closely at the Commercial Space Act. Item #4 would qualify.  Congress could decide that having the SLS as a backup to the FH until Vulcan is online is consistent with national security objectives.  SpaceX and ULA could sue but they would loose the lawsuit. 

Quote
4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
As Jim alluded to, the law states that the determination would be made by the Secretary of the Air Force:
Quote
TITLE II--FEDERAL ACQUISITION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided in this section, the Federal Government shall acquire space transportation services from United States commercial providers whenever such services are required in the course of its activities. To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers.
(b) Exceptions.--The Federal Government shall not be required to acquire space transportation services under subsection (a) if, on a case-by-case basis, the Administrator or, in the case of a national security issue, the Secretary of the Air Force, determines that--
.
.
.
(4) the use of space transportation services from United States commercial providers is inconsistent with national security objectives;
(My emphasis.)

Yeah as if Congress doesn't have any influence on the Secretary of the USAF..........

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/)

A article was even written in 2012 on this site about SLS DOD support. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 07:41 pm

If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online?  Without any launch contracts who is paying for that? 

Because contracts don't go out that far. 

There is a standing requirement (outside of NASA's needs) of 3-4 east coast and 2-3 west coast DIVH per decade.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/24/2015 07:43 pm

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/ (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/sls-dod-market-secondary-payloads-potential/)

A article was even written in 2012 on this site about SLS DOD support. 

It does nothing to support your case.  That is just an SLS marketing pitch from the SLS program.  The DOD has no interest. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/24/2015 08:25 pm


If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online?  Without any launch contracts who is paying for that?

It has contracts. Flights are booked years in advance and it can take two years from when an rocket was ordered to when it is launched. Delta will be available for booking until Vulcan is online. ULA is on the hook for any Delta flights already ordered. Vulcan will be able to accept some launch contracts before it's first flight as well. SLS can not gain payloads this way. The short is that payloads book flights years in advance and payloads can be shifted between launchers if needed(with negotiation).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/24/2015 09:16 pm
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this?  NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.

I'm talking about what they've already locked in.  You yourself mentioned how they've been bragging about how efficient their new tooling is and how much touch labour it will save, and in the very post I'm quoting you mention the fact that they've designed the infrastructure for low-rate production.  (Furthermore, ATK and Rocketdyne have been working to reduce costs as well.)

But here's the thing - we don't know of any recurring cost estimates made since that stuff was figured out.  The estimates I've been working with all predate the start of the SLS program, and are for a directly Shuttle-derived vehicle like Jupiter.  Even the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares; it straight-up says so in the document, and the fact that the estimated fixed cost is very similar to that of the J-246 would seem to back this up.  And since SLS is still deep in development, operational cost savings wouldn't yet be evident in the budget numbers (though the early estimates of cost to IOC did drop by a few billion dollars before climbing partway back up).

Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.

...

As an aside, I should acknowledge that the fact that they seem to be understaffed for production of two cores per year probably adds somewhat to the marginal cost of going to that rate.  But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle, it's hard to see how that by itself could increase it by a whole lot.  How much are these people paid?

Quote
You keep talking about this like there is some unseen effort to significantly reduce costs.  Unless you can point it out in statements NASA or Boeing has made, it's not there.

You haven't been paying attention.  They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdf
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/
http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssme
http://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/25/2015 04:48 pm
The whole point about SLS unit costs are that the production line is being setup to be at its lowest per unit cost at 1 per year. A higher or lower rate will increase the per unit cost. There is also a maximum rate due to the design of the tooling of 2 per year. To do higher rates a new set of tooling would be needed designed to support 5 or more (10) vehicle production rate per year. This is an overhead cost plus the unit margin costs such that until you get to a production rate of >3 the per unit cost will be more than the current 1 per year. As you move to the closer to 10 per year you may eventually get to the often quoted unit cost amount of $300M.

The conclusion is that for production rates from .5 to 3 per year the unit costs ripple up and down but generally stay almost the same or greater than the current setup for 1 per year amount.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/25/2015 09:24 pm
Okay, first you should probably define what you mean by "unit cost".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/26/2015 01:51 am
Postulate:  There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years.  (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)

Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?  If the factory ain't big enough, do you farm out work to other providers, rather like the von Braun team built the first Saturn I stages and then farmed out the work to Chrysler?  Do you expand the factory?

Is the issue lack of sufficient tooling?  If so, what is the extra cost of developing a second and/or third tooling set?  Heck, aren't they making spares of most of the most important tooling, anyway?  If so, how much additional does it cost to make another set or two?

I'm not trying to downplay the potential costs and difficulties in ramping up SLS production.  I'm just trying to understand where these costs and difficulties mostly lie.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/26/2015 02:24 am
Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate?  If the factory ain't big enough, do you farm out work to other providers, rather like the von Braun team built the first Saturn I stages and then farmed out the work to Chrysler?  Do you expand the factory?

You expand the current factory.  The transportation requirements are very unique, and few aerospace factories would qualify.

Quote
Is the issue lack of sufficient tooling?

Apparently so, but I'm not sure we have enough public information to fully answer this.

Quote
If so, what is the extra cost of developing a second and/or third tooling set?

The first set of tooling is usually the most expensive, but when it comes to custom tooling you might not get a break on the cost per unit, but you obviously wouldn't need to pay for the development costs.

Quote
Heck, aren't they making spares of most of the most important tooling, anyway?  If so, how much additional does it cost to make another set or two?

Yes, there would be both consumables and repairable items that are already in the factory, so you would just order more of those.  But the fixtures would be unique, such as the Vertical Assembly Center welding tool.

As a reference, here is a NASA article about the SLS tooling:

Tooling Up to Build the World's Largest Rocket (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2013/13-080.html) | NASA

You may not need duplicates of everything, but that depends on how Boeing and their contractors designed them, or how NASA spec'd them.

Expanding your current factory also allows for economies of scale, especially in production support functions such as manufacturing engineers, which have to be at the factory they support, so one factory only requires a fractional increase in manufacturing engineering staffing when expanded, whereas a second factory requires a doubling of staffing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/26/2015 02:31 am
Postulate:  There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years.  (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)

Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate? 

Doesn't do any good if it could.  The national infrastructure for spacecraft has to be beefed up if SLS is to fly more than Orion or 15ft diameter payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/26/2015 03:14 pm
Postulate:  There is a defined (and funded) need to build 3 to 4 SLS rockets a year for a period of 20 to 30 years.  (This is the postulate, not an argument -- trying to knock down the postulate short-circuits the purpose of the question.)

Given this, what do you need to do in order to fulfill that production rate? 

Doesn't do any good if it could.  The national infrastructure for spacecraft has to be beefed up if SLS is to fly more than Orion or 15ft diameter payloads.
Jim,
This is a thought experiment seeking if it is possible and what it would take to increase the production rate of SLS. The second part is what effect on unit cost would this have?

The justification for such higher launch rate/production rates is a separate question. From all the work to optimize at 1 per year, says that all the projections on launch rate does not go over 2 per year and averages to 1 per year over the period of through 2030. At an average of 1 per year starting after 2021 (EM-2)the projection is that only 8 more SLS launches would possibly occur through 2030.

If the program lasts through 2030 then only 10 SLSs will be built and fly between now and 2030 (15 years period). In that 15year period it is possible that a large commercial launcher (>=100mt) or other demonstrated capabilities that could do the same with smaller amounts (distributed launch) could come into existence.

edit added:
If the high launch costs are what is controlling the launch rate what would the launch rate be if the per launch costs were 1/2, 1/4 or even 1/10 of that of the SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: muomega0 on 09/26/2015 04:46 pm
Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.

You haven't been paying attention.  They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdf
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/
http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssme
http://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/

The new estimate is that it takes over 3B/yr to fly SLS/Orion from 2018 to 2027 for SLS/Orion yearly solo shots.

It then takes over $8B/year per the NASA budget (http://i2.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NASA-2015_Budget21.jpg) to fly the SLS 2028 to 2046 mission set (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38507.msg1429504#msg1429504) as it includes ISS Splashdown and abandons commercial crew. (Space Ops 3.83B, Exploration 4.35B, Crew 0.8B, R&D 0.42B). 

With only a flight per year in the early 2020s, it also adds $1B/yr Delta Heavy flights.  If you start with the wrong architecture and LV/components, so much for afforadability and sustainability.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/26/2015 05:05 pm
Hence my claim that we don't yet know what effect the new approach will have on ops costs.

You haven't been paying attention.  They've been going on about "affordability" and "sustainability" since the program started, and the actual work being done seems to be at least somewhat consistent with the rhetoric.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/08/boeing-complete-sls-pathfinder-tank-maf-et-operations-end/
http://spacenews.com/nasa-centers-see-commonality-key-sls-affordability/
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003874.pdf
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/dynetics-pwr-liquidize-sls-booster-competition-f-1-power/
http://www.americaspace.com/?p=25799
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/10/28/atk-build-sls-boosters-cheaper-peformance/
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/02/sls-new-buckling-standards-drops-super-light-alloy/
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/31/3-d-printing-makes-its-mark-in-nasas-new-engine/
http://aviationweek.com/space/aerojet-rocketdyne-cranking-expendable-ssme
http://spacenews.com/36012tooling-processes-coming-together-for-affordable-space-launch-system/

The new estimate is that it takes over 3B/yr to fly SLS/Orion from 2018 to 2027 for SLS/Orion yearly solo shots.

It then takes over $8B/year per the NASA budget (http://i2.wp.com/www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/NASA-2015_Budget21.jpg) to fly the SLS 2028 to 2046 mission set (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38507.msg1429504#msg1429504) as it includes ISS Splashdown and abandons commercial crew. (Space Ops 3.83B, Exploration 4.35B, Crew 0.8B, R&D 0.42B). 

With only a flight per year in the early 2020s, it also adds $1B/yr Delta Heavy flights.  If you start with the wrong architecture and LV/components, so much for afforadability and sustainability.
Do you have a breakout for the $3B 2018-2027?

Edit added:

15 (2013-2028) years at $3B per year for a total of 8 flights is $45B or $5.65B average per flight costs including development. (Must add development costs to compare against pure commercial but then again there are few true pure commercial developments). Removing development costs (6 years and the first flight) gives $3.8B average per flight costs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 09/26/2015 06:48 pm
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online?  Without any launch contracts who is paying for that? 

Actually it doesn't need any contracts to keep the production line open and the launch facilities in place. The DoD pays ULA $1B (that's "billion" with a B) cash each year to do just that - no launches required and no strings attached.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/26/2015 07:54 pm
If the Delta Heavy doesn't have any launch contracts why would ULA keep the production line open and launch facilities in-place until the Vulcan is online?  Without any launch contracts who is paying for that? 

Actually it doesn't need any contracts to keep the production line open and the launch facilities in place. The DoD pays ULA $1B (that's "billion" with a B) cash each year to do just that - no launches required and no strings attached.

That payment is being phased out.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/26/2015 07:55 pm
As to "tech enhancements and right-sizing", where are you hearing this?  NASA would have to pay Boeing more to change their current setup, and they have already locked in their current capabilities.

I'm talking about what they've already locked in.  You yourself mentioned how they've been bragging about how efficient their new tooling is and how much touch labour it will save, and in the very post I'm quoting you mention the fact that they've designed the infrastructure for low-rate production.  (Furthermore, ATK and Rocketdyne have been working to reduce costs as well.)

The only way to know if you're saving money on something is to know what the costs were before you were saving money, and then compare that to what you're now paying.  And since the SLS is a completely new design, with new tooling and a new contractor (Shuttle ET was LM, SLS is Boeing), there is no way to know what any costs might have been if they hadn't done what is actually their job - to build a quality product at the lowest practical cost.

Claiming cost savings without a basis of comparison is pure advertising, not facts.

If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.

Quote
As an aside, I should acknowledge that the fact that they seem to be understaffed for production of two cores per year probably adds somewhat to the marginal cost of going to that rate.  But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle, it's hard to see how that by itself could increase it by a whole lot.  How much are these people paid?

Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost".  There are no facts to use to calculate it.  No one in the public has enough facts about the cost of the SLS.

And stop trying to equate the manufacturing cost of the SLS to the Shuttle External Tank.  The SLS 1st stage is 3.2X more mass than the Shuttle External Tank, and it has obvious design differences.  Plus the Shuttle ET was built by Lockheed Martin in serial production over a period of decades, whereas the SLS is being built by Boeing and it's just starting to get the tooling to work.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 09/26/2015 09:52 pm
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost".  There are no facts to use to calculate it.

93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/27/2015 03:57 am
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost".  There are no facts to use to calculate it.

93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.

Rather than advising people to give up, it's probably better to help the questioner see that their question might somehow get better answers if it were phrased differently.

I wonder, for example: "What would be the cost of accelerating the SLS production and flight rate from one every 12 months to one every 10 months?"

That asks a question similar to one about "marginal" costs, though ... not quite the same.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/27/2015 04:25 am
If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.

This isn't the first time anyone has designed a launch vehicle like this.  NLS-1 made it through PDR, and a lot of information is available publicly.  DIRECT's Jupiter was heavily studied and cost projections were made over a spectrum of flight rates for various configurations (I linked a graph earlier in the thread, if you'll recall).  And early versions of SLS were put through NASA's cost-estimating machine to produce (among other things) the ESD Integration Budget Availability Scenarios document from 2011, with costs based directly on Shuttle where applicable - including core stage costs being based on the ET.

The idea with Jupiter and proto-SLS was that the ET tooling and workforce would be reused to build core stages.  Similarly, the boosters were assumed to be done the same way they had always been done, before ATK's Value Stream Mapping exercise; the ESD Integration document based booster costs on the Ares I first stage, with no mention of cost savings associated with the "competitive booster" (which would have been hard to estimate at the time, since no proposals existed).  The ESD Integration document also mentions the RS-25E, but there is no indication of any cost savings associated with it either; the RS-25 costs are simply said to be based on the SSME.

So the cost estimates I showed you earlier in the thread were exactly what you just asked for.

Quote
Quote
But if you look at the staffing numbers associated with production and how they compare with those for Shuttle
And stop trying to equate the manufacturing cost of the SLS to the Shuttle External Tank.

I am not doing that.  I am comparing MAF's sub-1000 SLS workforce with its ~2500-man STS workforce, with the intent of implying that the increase in workforce required to operate Boeing's advanced low-rate automated production equipment at full speed rather than half speed is unlikely, by itself, to account for a large* difference in marginal cost vs. using the old Shuttle tank production equipment with the full workforce already present.  A similar argument applies to the boosters.

* You seem to be implicitly defending the idea that the SLS marginal cost to go from one launch per year to two could reasonably be as high as $1B.  What I am saying here is that the workforce delta alone is not going to bridge the gap between the numbers I've shown and the numbers you're trying to imply are plausible.

We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.

Has that number ever been shown to be a marginal cost estimate for SLS?  I thought people just started assuming it was because they couldn't imagine it being anything else.

The whole point about SLS unit costs are that the production line is being setup to be at its lowest per unit cost at 1 per year. A higher or lower rate will increase the per unit cost. There is also a maximum rate due to the design of the tooling of 2 per year. To do higher rates a new set of tooling would be needed designed to support 5 or more (10) vehicle production rate per year. This is an overhead cost plus the unit margin costs such that until you get to a production rate of >3 the per unit cost will be more than the current 1 per year. As you move to the closer to 10 per year you may eventually get to the often quoted unit cost amount of $300M.

The conclusion is that for production rates from .5 to 3 per year the unit costs ripple up and down but generally stay almost the same or greater than the current setup for 1 per year amount.
Okay, first you should probably define what you mean by "unit cost".

Well?

Your account doesn't seem internally consistent, given what I know of industrial production.  The second paragraph, as well as the first couple sentences of the first one, make plenty of sense if you're talking about some kind of incremental or marginal production cost.  But later in the first paragraph you add overhead associated with extra production equipment to "unit margin costs" to get unit cost, which implies total cost, which in turn implies that you're claiming that the total cost of having and running the facility at MAF would be more than twice as high at two cores per year as at one core per year.  And if that's what you're claiming, well...  citation needed.

Also, I hear there's plenty of floor space at MAF, so I'm not sure why it would be impossible to set up for rates between 2 and 5 per year.  Is this inside information you're supplying?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/27/2015 05:08 am
Give up on trying to figure out "marginal cost".  There are no facts to use to calculate it.

93143 has provided sources. They give us a rough idea about the marginal cost. We also have the "official" $500m number from NASA.

No actual contracts have been signed for building a production SLS, and the discussion has been about the "marginal costs" for production.  Boeing still hasn't figured out whether the 1st and 2nd pre-production units (SLS-1 &-2) will be able to be built as planned.

As to numbers from "NASA", NASA used to claim low marginal costs for the Shuttle, but now know at the end of the program that each flight cost $1.2B without development factored in.  Which is why public facts are the only numbers that can be trusted.

If you disagree, then please point out what the costs were supposed to be before they implemented the supposed cost savings.

This isn't the first time anyone has designed a launch vehicle like this.  NLS-1 made it through PDR, and a lot of information is available publicly.

When you talk about "marginal cost", that is for production SLS units.  And so far not even a development or pre-production SLS has been built, much less flown.  The NLS-1, which never made it into production, was based on the Shuttle External Tank (ET), and the SLS 1st stage is a different design from the ET and 3.2X more mass.

The last contract I could find on the cost of the ET showed that it cost $173M/ea back in 2010 when procured in quantities of at least 17 units.  So if the SLS 1st stage cost 3.2X the Shuttle ET that would be $554M/ea - no engines or other accessories.  Of course that ignores a likely difference in contract quantity, since I doubt Congress will allow NASA to buy 17 production SLS 1st stages right away (meaning no volume cost breaks).  But it could be argued that the SLS 1st stage will require less than 3.2X the amount of labor, and that the $/lb of the raw material is less expensive than the Shuttle ET (the cost of AL has fluctuated up and down 20% since 2010).

Lots of factors, but few facts about the production version of the SLS - because NASA and Boeing haven't built any SLS yet, so they don't know what a successfully built SLS consists of.

But I'll leave it at that for now...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 09/27/2015 11:31 am
Even the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares; it straight-up says so in the document, and the fact that the estimated fixed cost is very similar to that of the J-246 would seem to back this up.

To exactly which document do you refer?  If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811814#msg811814)), where does the statement appear?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/27/2015 04:35 pm
Marginal Cost
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/marginal-cost.html#ixzz3mxBMPvv1 (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/marginal-cost.html#ixzz3mxBMPvv1)
Quote
The increase or decrease in the total cost of a production run for making one additional unit of an item. It is computed in situations where the break-even point has been reached: the fixed costs have already been absorbed by the already produced items and only the direct (variable) costs have to be accounted for.

Unit Cost
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/unit-cost.html#ixzz3mxC2axbo (http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/unit-cost.html#ixzz3mxC2axbo)
Quote
Expenditure incurred in producing one unit of a good or service, computed usually as average cost.

Marginal costs are a tricky thing. It should be a constant value. But sometimes it varies as the capabilities of production are reached and another production line must be added to produce the next unit. This makes the Marginal cost value sometimes pop up with a large value between the consecutive numbers of items to be built. What I am saying is that going from 1 per year to 2 per year is not very significant in that no new equipment or lines are required just more people (incremental cost) no additional overhead cost (fixed cost). But going from 2 to 3 per year there is significant overhead costs (fixed costs) that must be added when the additional set of tooling is added, almost the same costs as that to produce 1 per year. Because some tooling may not need a second set this increase is not exactly the same but some percentage of the total.
Meaning that the marginal cost going from 2 to 3 per year is much greater than the marginal cost of going from 1 to 2.

If the production line is set up correctly then the Unit costs should decrease in an exponential rate as more units a fixed incremental cost are produced for the set fixed costs. Also these incremental costs may themselves be affected by the number of produced items by making the personnel more efficient at producing items thereby additionally lowering the Incremental and the resulting Unit costs even more.

But what I am saying is the SLS is not this case, and any attempt to predict costs are going to be a very rough estimate and most likely to be wrong by even as much as a factor of 2.

The specifics of the problem are this:
1) For going from 1 to 2 the fixed costs are the same and the incremental cost per unit is the same so the marginal cost is equal to the incremental cost.
2) For going from 2 to 3 the fixed costs increase by 50-80% but the incremental costs are the same. So the marginal cost for going from 2 to 3 is the 50-80% increase in fixed cost plus an incremental cost.
3) Going from 3 to 4 is the same marginal cost value as that for going from 1 to 2.

What this does is the average cost (Unit cost) fluctuates up and down and does not follow a nice exponential curve.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/27/2015 06:56 pm
ISTM a lot depends on how much slack exists in the nominal schedules of the various production tools, and whether there are opportunities for the upstream tools to "get ahead" a bit without creating a congestion in the flow of parts.

For example, in August Jason Davis of The Planetary Society photographed the Gore Weld Tool, where an EM-1 flight article tank dome was being welded.
http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/spacecraft/eft-1-aft-liquid-oxygen-tank.html

Presumably by now that dome is complete. But it can't move to the Vertical Assembly Center yet, because that tool suffered a misalignment problem. So is it still sitting on the Gore Weld Tool, preventing the welding of the next dome needed for EM-1? Is there a holding fixture where the completed dome can be temporarily stored? As regards costs, is it possible that for example to increase the production rate Michoud would need more of these temporary storage fixtures? They wouldn't be expensive, perhaps, but they aren't zero cost either....
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/27/2015 09:15 pm
NASA used to claim low marginal costs for the Shuttle, but now know at the end of the program that each flight cost $1.2B without development factored in.

Apples to oranges.  The $1.2B number is the whole program's cost in modern dollars (minus development) divided by the flight rate.  It thus includes not only fixed costs during operational years, but also the costs incurred while the program was grounded after Challenger and Columbia.  And I'm pretty sure it includes SFS and ongoing development too.  This is not in the least comparable to anything deserving of the name "marginal cost".

Even back before STS was developed, when they still had high hopes for the idea, they managed to nail the marginal cost within a factor of two; what killed them was fixed cost divided by flight rate.  After 30 years of experience with running STS, and even more with various expendables, the economics of a Shuttle-derived inline launcher are much better understood than the economics of running STS were back in the early 1970s.

Quote
When you talk about "marginal cost", that is for production SLS units.  And so far not even a development or pre-production SLS has been built, much less flown.

Yes, but estimates for the cost of such a system, based on the old technology, exist.  And at multiple flight rates, so a marginal cost can be calculated directly from the given data.  I have shown this.

Can you show me that it is plausible that the marginal cost of increasing the SLS production rate from one unit per year to two units per year could increase from ~$350M or so to ~$1000M, given the known scope of the changes?  I doubt it.

Quote
The last contract I could find on the cost of the ET showed that it cost $173M/ea back in 2010 when procured in quantities of at least 17 units.  So if the SLS 1st stage cost 3.2X the Shuttle ET that would be $554M/ea - no engines or other accessories.

Apples to oranges again.  We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate, not a particular component's share of the total recurring costs.

To exactly which document do you refer?  If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811814#msg811814)), where does the statement appear?

Right below every sand chart, it says the following:

FY11:  21st CGS = CxP GO; MPCV = CxP Orion + EVA + MO; SLS =Ares I FS (Booster / Avionics), Ares I J-2X (US Engine), SSP SSME (Core Engine), SSP ET (Core Stage), Ares I PM / VI / S&MA / FITO (Prog Integ)

I may have overstated the clarity of the statement somewhat; how would you interpret this?

The specifics of the problem are this:
1) For going from 1 to 2 the fixed costs are the same and the incremental cost per unit is the same so the marginal cost is equal to the incremental cost.
2) For going from 2 to 3 the fixed costs increase by 50-80% but the incremental costs are the same. So the marginal cost for going from 2 to 3 is the 50-80% increase in fixed cost plus an incremental cost.
3) Going from 3 to 4 is the same marginal cost value as that for going from 1 to 2.

Thank you.  That's not actually a problem in this case, since the discussion has been centered on changes in flight rate within the known limits of the production equipment and launch facilities.  I did acknowledge that the tooling maxes out at two per year (launch can do three, so you can bank cores for a surge), and I did mention the bump up on DIRECT's EELV charts at the point where the factory maxes out (I figured the implications for SLS as built were pretty clear).

As regards costs, is it possible that for example to increase the production rate Michoud would need more of these temporary storage fixtures? They wouldn't be expensive, perhaps, but they aren't zero cost either....

That's an interesting question.  What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year?  It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/27/2015 11:16 pm
...We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate...

What was the original supposition that lead to this discussion about "marginal cost"?  I think it's been a while, and I've forgotten.

Is "marginal cost" something that will play into the discussion about the future of the SLS?  In other words, is a future NASA Administrator going to be called in front of Congress and asked what the "marginal cost" is of the SLS, and that their answer will determine whether an additional SLS is authorized?

Or are we talking about something that only accountants get excited about?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 09/28/2015 12:00 am
I think the maximum production stated by NASA is by using the current or existing workforce.  I think more can be made per year IF they ramp up production by adding extra shifts, and or weekend shifts.  They were able to producte what, 4-6 Saturn V cores per year.  Why not produce the same SLS cores.  Surely they can produce more solid cores than two per year or even 4 per year.  How long did it take them to produce 1,000 Minutemen's in the 1960's?  4-5 years?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/28/2015 12:05 am

That's an interesting question.  What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year?  It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...

Not really. The plant was designed from the get go with a certain amount of production in mind. Tooling, processes and procedures don’t scale the same efficiency at every production rate.  The short to make more of something you may need to change tooling to tooling supportive of that production rate.  Processes and procedures likewise. Otherwise just simply adding more tools and adding more people will not dropping per unit costs all that much.

An good example is me attempting to bake ten cakes in my kitchen vs. an bakery or an commercial kitchen. My oven will only fit 3 at an time. An bakery or commercial kitchen could have larger ovens or block long ovens that bake the cake as it travels along the line.(i.e. Tooling).

I could not lift or bake ten cakes worth of batter, if I had it. I would have to break it up into batches and that would slow me down considerably. An bakery could use an hoist to lift into a batter measuring machine(Process).

Having enough staffing to cover all sifts, vacations, sick time or produce product at an min. amount is not an problem when there is only one person. However in an production enviroment that comes into play.(Procedures)

NASA simply desgined the factory for SLS and for an flight rate of 1-2 an year and it likely was an attractive thing to do(complies with the law--which states nothing about production rate). President not actively engaged(not his baby) and does nothing to further his goal(commercialization of human spaceflight). Saves money(designing for smaller scales of production is cheaper than larger scales). All parties are fine with it.

It isn't one tool, it is the whole thing.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 03:59 am
I think the maximum production stated by NASA is by using the current or existing workforce.  I think more can be made per year IF they ramp up production by adding extra shifts, and or weekend shifts.  They were able to producte what, 4-6 Saturn V cores per year.  Why not produce the same SLS cores.  Surely they can produce more solid cores than two per year or even 4 per year.  How long did it take them to produce 1,000 Minutemen's in the 1960's?  4-5 years?

Given enough time and money, anything is possible.

As to the current SLS production capabilities, from a SpaceNews article this year:

"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."

Also, and this sometimes gets lost on people, you have to have a need to produce more...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 04:32 am

That's an interesting question.  What, exactly, is the bottleneck that prevents the current setup from exceeding two cores per year?  It seems odd that no individual tool would be capable of any more than that; it's an awfully slow production rate even for such large components...

Not really. The plant was designed from the get go with a certain amount of production in mind. Tooling, processes and procedures don’t scale the same efficiency at every production rate.

Factories cost money, and everything in them has a cost.  So Boeing was only asked to build a factory that met NASA's requirements, which apparently was a minimum of one per year with the ability with additional NASA funding to increase to two per year.

To go above two per year depends on the tooling and various work centers.  I've done capacity planning for a high volume consumer electronics factory, and it's not alway simple reasons why a work center can't scale easily, especially when what you're doing is "state of the art".  And not all of the constraints are in your factory, it could be the constraint is with your supply chain (like Boeing experienced with fasteners for the 787).

Out of the six "substantial" welding tools for the cryogenic core stage on SLS, some of them might already have plenty of available capacity to go above 2/year, but that one particular tool (like maybe the Vertical Assembly Center) is the bottleneck.  We would need to know throughput time for each center to better understand the constraints, but even the proposed Mars plan doesn't need more than two per year until the late 2020's, so this is not a near-term need.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 09/28/2015 07:38 pm
Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.  So, can ATK manufacture 12 solid boosters a year to match?  If they want to get serious about going to Mars, they will have to manufacture more than two per year, even if you only went to Mars every two years.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   I guess if they are going to Mars using SLS, they are probably going to have to use other launchers to launch components, fuel, SEP tugs, habitats, or something to LEO or to L2 and assemble to go to Mars.  More SLS launches would equal less in space assembly. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/28/2015 07:55 pm
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

1.  Not true.  Space/volume does not determine capability.  The tooling does.  Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users

2.  See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted.  Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 07:55 pm
Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

The production line for a 2015 Ford Mustang is not the same as the production line that was used for the 1968 Ford Mustang, and so it is with the Saturn S-IC and the SLS 1st stage.  The amount of space that they need maybe completely different between the two.

And as a point of reference, at least according to Wikipedia:

"It took roughly seven to nine months to build the tanks and 14 months to complete a stage."

Quote
So, can ATK manufacture 12 solid boosters a year to match?

I'm not sure why anyone is worried about being able to build enough SLS.  If the money is there, American industry can do just about anything - and the SLS is not a very complicated structure to build compared to what American industry has already done.  Your worry should be directed at the politicians that so far have not funded any production SLS flights, nor approved any missions that require the SLS.  If Congress coughs up the money, Boeing and it's suppliers will build it.

Quote
I guess if they are going to Mars using SLS, they are probably going to have to use other launchers to launch components, fuel, SEP tugs, habitats, or something to LEO or to L2 and assemble to go to Mars.

The current NASA Mars proposal only assumes using the SLS.  No commercial or partner launchers.

Quote
More SLS launches would equal less in space assembly.

There are trade-offs that negate that potential advantage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/28/2015 08:54 pm
NASA simply desgined the factory for SLS and for an flight rate of 1-2 an year and it likely was an attractive thing to do(complies with the law--which states nothing about production rate). President not actively engaged(not his baby) and does nothing to further his goal(commercialization of human spaceflight). Saves money(designing for smaller scales of production is cheaper than larger scales). All parties are fine with it.

It isn't one tool, it is the whole thing.

The evolvable Mars campaign has a maximum of 3 SLS launches during certain years. Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year? Assuming NASA only uses SLS they could store extra cores made during the decade of once a year flights and then use them for the years that require 3 flights. Block 2B uses the same core and upper stage as Block 1B.

Alternatively you could tag team SLS with Vulcan and Falcon to launch some elements of the mission. That should get rid of the need to launch more than 2 SLS's a year.

From where I am sitting the production rate is fine for what is needed to have robust cis-lunar and Mars missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 10:07 pm
The evolvable Mars campaign has a maximum of 3 SLS launches during certain years. Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year? Assuming NASA only uses SLS they could store extra cores made during the decade of once a year flights and then use them for the years that require 3 flights. Block 2B uses the same core and upper stage as Block 1B.

Speaking from a production scheduling standpoint, sure, you probably could do that.  However from a budget standpoint that increases your spending upfront, and it decreases your vehicle flexibility to a certain degree (i.e. units built years in advance don't have current improvements).

But if the Mars plan gets approved, the cost of expanding the SLS production line will likely be assumed as part of the plan, and overall would probably only be in the single digits as far as overall program cost.

Quote
Alternatively you could tag team SLS with Vulcan and Falcon to launch some elements of the mission. That should get rid of the need to launch more than 2 SLS's a year.

Sure, or even go all commercial.  Letting commercial launchers into the mix opens Pandora's box for NASA, since it will highlight the disadvantages of a government-run HLV transportation system - chief of which would be cost and redundancy.  Quite the conundrum...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/28/2015 10:18 pm

Sure, or even go all commercial.  Letting commercial launchers into the mix opens Pandora's box for NASA, since it will highlight the disadvantages of a government-run HLV transportation system - chief of which would be cost and redundancy.  Quite the conundrum...

To quote Judge Dredd, "I knew you'd say that."   ;)

Going all commercial wouldn't work IMHO. You would run into capacity and volume issues that I have pointed out previously. A number of payloads as well as manned Orion launches wouldn't work on a Falcon Heavy or a Vulcan. The best bet is to use commercial to supplement SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/28/2015 10:49 pm
...We were discussing marginal costs associated with changes in flight rate...

What was the original supposition that lead to this discussion about "marginal cost"?  I think it's been a while, and I've forgotten.

It was suggested that it might be worthwhile to use SLS as a substitute for Delta IV Heavy to launch large DoD payloads, considering that SLS would already exist for unrelated reasons, whereas DIVH wouldn't:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1425851#msg1425851

The question about DIVH doesn't seem to turn exclusively or even primarily on the marginal cost question, but the marginal cost question was apparently contentious on its own.

There was an earlier discussion in another thread, sparked by an offhand comment I made in a post on a different subject:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38171.msg1424057#msg1424057

It was off topic there, but it's not off topic here, so here it is.

Quote
Is "marginal cost" something that will play into the discussion about the future of the SLS?  In other words, is a future NASA Administrator going to be called in front of Congress and asked what the "marginal cost" is of the SLS, and that their answer will determine whether an additional SLS is authorized?

Or are we talking about something that only accountants get excited about?

The marginal cost we've been discussing is the cost incurred by the U.S. Government in changing the SLS flight rate.  If you wanted to put a DoD payload on SLS, with sufficient lead time of course, this is what you'd pay to do that.  If you wanted to double the launch rate from one per year to two, this is what you'd pay every year to do that.  Exclusive of payload costs, of course...

This could easily come up in front of Congress, because unless someone's talking about cancelling the program outright, marginal cost is the only cost associated with SLS that actually affects overall budget allocations (how the money is distributed between agencies is a separate issue).

...of course, that's only technically true below the current maximum production rate.  Going above that is a bit different, because in addition to the marginal cost (which is higher because of the infrastructure delta), you also have the one-time capital cost of the upgrade...

EDIT: It's probably more likely that Congress would ask about the total cost of a plan, and the marginal cost of increasing the SLS flight rate to execute the plan would be rolled into the estimate, perhaps implicitly.  It's still important that anyone contemplating a use for SLS understand the difference between total cost and marginal cost, so as to properly forecast what the effect of a change will be.

Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year?

Do we really need a space program at all?

Jupiter was supposed to fly six times per year, two J-130s for ISS runs and four J-246es for two Constellation-class lunar surface sorties (or two of each configuration; apparently J-130 could loft Orion+Altair to LEO if they did separate circ burns).  And the flight rate could easily increase if anything else wanted doing.

Now, we probably don't need SLS making milk runs to the ISS.  But I see no reason why a couple of heavy lunar landers per year (perhaps developed from existing upper stage technology, so as to save money vs. Altair) should be out of scope, except that Obama's "vision" seems to have sucked all the hope out of everybody.  Add depots (with tankers), and you've freed up a couple of launches, but you still have to go past two per year if you want to do literally anything else on top of your six-month moon base rotation.  Like, say, launch scientific probes to the outer planets, or large space telescopes, or BA-330s to cislunar space, or BA-2100s to LEO, or the notional giant black payloads that have been hinted about, or, y'know...  go to Mars.  Especially every two years...

Quote
More SLS launches would equal less in space assembly.
There are trade-offs that negate that potential advantage.

Trade-offs?  Sure, though the big one is the mere existence of SLS and its budget line (again, marginal cost proves relevant).  Negate?  Not necessarily.  Remember, you're adding a lot of design and development, a lot of extra hardware and extra mass, and a lot of extra on-orbit operations, and the result may even end up less capable and/or less robust because of all the hardware overhead.

Parkinson and Hempsell (2003) claim that "space station acquisition costs are dominated by the level of modularization and in orbit assembly, to the extent that in a mixed launcher fleet it pays to use the largest launch system regardless of any impact on launch costs" (emphasis added).  This of course assumes that the HLV already exists, so development costs are excluded.  Mark Hempsell has backed off from this position somewhat, and as of 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24621.msg735577#msg735577) seems to have believed that the combination of inflatable structures and a successful Skylon makes the tradeoff with an HLV "finely balanced".

Now, a Mars mission is not a space station.  But plainly the in-space assembly question cannot be carelessly handwaved away.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/28/2015 11:10 pm
Going all commercial wouldn't work IMHO. You would run into capacity and volume issues that I have pointed out previously.

As I've mentioned previously, I don't see any capacity issues for the SLS.  Sure there would be a cost to expanding the current production capabilities, but it would be doable, and probably for a cost less than what this initial capacity cost.

For commercial launchers there are no capacity issues either.  I've heard the number 160 thrown around, and if that was over a period of 10 years that's only 16 flights per year, which would be 8/year if divided between two providers.  That's doable with the current ULA and SpaceX production capabilities, even with other customers in the mix.  And both ULA and SpaceX have stated they can expand their production capabilities if needed.  From my manufacturing operations perspective, this is a non-issue.

Quote
A number of payloads as well as manned Orion launches wouldn't work on a Falcon Heavy or a Vulcan.

Already the Mars proposal has elements that could fly on existing launchers, and Orion could fly on the upcoming Falcon Heavy - which is planned to be operational before the SLS is.  Obviously something like ULA's Distributed Launch concept would need to be used, but that is a launch vehicle-independent technique that is needed for expanding humanity out into space anyways, so perfecting it sooner rather than later is good.

As to other payloads, we don't really know how we're going to land large amounts of mass on Mars yet, so we don't know if 8m diameter payloads are necessary.

Quote
The best bet is to use commercial to supplement SLS.

I would simplify that even more.  Redundancy should be a priority, meaning the loss of any launch family should not stop our progress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 09/29/2015 12:28 am
Do we really need to up the SLS production rate beyond 2 a year?

Do we really need a space program at all?

Now, we probably don't need SLS making milk runs to the ISS.  But I see no reason why a couple of heavy lunar landers per year (perhaps developed from existing upper stage technology, so as to save money vs. Altair) should be out of scope, except that Obama's "vision" seems to have sucked all the hope out of everybody.  Add depots (with tankers), and you've freed up a couple of launches, but you still have to go past two per year if you want to do literally anything else on top of your six-month moon base rotation.  Like, say, launch scientific probes to the outer planets, or large space telescopes, or BA-330s to cislunar space, or BA-2100s to LEO, or the notional giant black payloads that have been hinted about, or, y'know...  go to Mars.  Especially every two years...

Look I am all in favor of flying 3 or 4 SLS's a year. I just wanted to point out that we don't necessarily have to increase production more than 2 per year in order to achieve certain mission plans (EMC). I keep hearing the argument, "it can only launch twice a year so lets cancel it and yada yada yada." I just wanted to counter that argument. You could do a purely cislunar mission with a lunar space station and lunar lander with a two launch per year cadence. To do Moon, Mars, and elsewhere or a combination of them you need more than 2 SLS flights per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 09/29/2015 12:58 am
Fair enough.  It is certainly possible to do interesting missions under the current constraints.

I'm just a bit annoyed that they've baked in such an anemic maximum, or rather that they've been forced to do so by budget pressure and lack of vision.  It seems such a waste of potential to go to all the trouble to build an HLV and then barely use it.

...well, it's better than one flight every two years, as was the projection not so long ago...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MarcAlain on 09/30/2015 02:29 am
I'd rather see a focus on landing on the Moon, practicing base building there, and developing a L2 station than trying to do a bare bones trip to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 09/30/2015 04:12 am
I'd rather see a focus on landing on the Moon, practicing base building there, and developing a L2 station than trying to do a bare bones trip to Mars.

Take heart! Sure NASA talks of Mars, and has a plan which will, "Keep Mars in view." But look at the capabilities of the system they're building. It produces one launch a year, sometimes bursting to two. And nothing they're building today is useful solely for Mars missions. In fact "all the wood" right now is behind the proving ground "arrow."

Only once there's substantial progress on a deep space habitat will it make sense to ask, "What sort of system for transport to the surface of a planetary body comes next?" If the time comes and the budget can support these amazing Mars missions, then sure let's go for it. But more realistically, you're likely to get your wish!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 09/30/2015 05:20 pm
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

 Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Clarification please.
Are you saying there is one pad, or more than 1 pad for SLS?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 09/30/2015 08:59 pm
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

 Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.
Clarification please.
Are you saying there is one pad, or more than 1 pad for SLS?

I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

However, SLS is not Shuttle and it will have a clean pad with no FSS or RSS. So it seems to me that the limitation would be in the number MLPs, not pads. If NASA needed to launch multiple SLSes in hurry, they just need more MLPs. Roll up, hook up, launch. At least, that's the theory. :) I'm sure the reality would be a non-trivial amount of time between launches, even with a clean pad.

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 09/30/2015 09:21 pm
So if they had two MLP's and used two bays to set up a couple of SLS's, they could what launch 1 a week?  If they had unlimited cores and boosters coming in.  So, it seems to me the bottleneck for launching more than two a year is production at McCloud facility.  Don't know about ATK production of boosters.  I understand once the steel boosters are gone, they will go to the Black Knights.  Now is seems they should have designed a clean sheet with reusable boosters and core, or at least a return pod with the engines. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 09/30/2015 09:37 pm
So if they had two MLP's and used two bays to set up a couple of SLS's, they could what launch 1 a week? 

No, booster stacking takes longer than that.  Add in upper stage and payload and VAB time is much more than Shuttle. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/30/2015 09:40 pm
So, it seems to me the bottleneck for launching more than two a year is production at McCloud facility.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that just improving one "bottleneck" automatically means you can launch an SLS weekly.  NASA paid their contractors to build a production system based on a limited flight rate, because NASA does not have any visibility into the true need the future flight rate.  No one does until Congress approves the allocation of money to make it happen.

What that means is that money will be needed throughout the supply chain to increase production.  How much?  We in the public don't know, but on average it should be less per unit produced than the current rate.  And likely there is an upper end where new facilities and transportation systems will be needed.

Quote
Now is seems they should have designed a clean sheet with reusable boosters and core, or at least a return pod with the engines.

Reusable SLS 1st stage?  Are you serious?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/01/2015 02:04 pm
So if they had two MLP's and used two bays to set up a couple of SLS's, they could what launch 1 a week? 

No, booster stacking takes longer than that.  Add in upper stage and payload and VAB time is much more than Shuttle.

Assume NASA has two high bays in the VAB for SLS stacking, and two MLPs to put them on. And it stacks two SLS vehicles complete with boosters, EUS, and payload/Orion. You now have two SLS ready to launch on their own mobile platforms sitting in the VAB, and a single clean pad to launch them from (39B).

Assuming just one CT, what would be the minimum interval of time between launching the two fully stacked and prepped SLS on the single pad 39B? My guess is certainly more than a week, but hopefully less than a month.

What would have to take place between the two launches? Clearly there would need to be a lot LH2 on hand. :) Does the LH2 tank hold enough for two launches? If not, how long would it take to top it off?

And I'm sure there's a lot of work to hook utilities, data, and piping up to the MLP once it is delivered to the clean pad.

Remember that this is just a thought exercise. Please be kind. :)

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 10/01/2015 11:04 pm
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

1.  Not true.  Space/volume does not determine capability.  The tooling does.  Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users

2.  See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted.  Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.

Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 10/02/2015 03:39 pm
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/02/2015 05:47 pm
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.

Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.

So now that we know that NASA will never build another ML or have more than one launch pad. How long will it take NASA to launch all of the SLS needed for one complete current Mars DRM mission, given one ML, one pad, and one VAB high bay. Have they gotten the number of launches below 10 yet?

Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!

Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 10/02/2015 06:30 pm
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.

Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.

So now that we know that NASA will never build another ML or have more than one launch pad. How long will it take NASA to launch all of the SLS needed for one complete current Mars DRM mission, given one ML, one pad, and one VAB high bay. Have they gotten the number of launches below 10 yet?

Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!

Thanks.

I thought the article pretty much spelled that out.
From the article.
Quote
Mars 2039:

Build up for the first human Mars mission would commence in 2033 with the launch of an SLS mission to deliver the TEI stage to Cis-lunar space.

This would be followed in 2034 by the launch of the first two Mars Surface Landers on two separate SLS missions.

The year 2035 would then see two more SLS missions, with the launches of the third and fourth Mars Surface Landers.

This would be followed in 2036 with the launch of the fifth and final Mars Surface Lander.

With the launch of the fifth lander, all pre-deployment payloads for the first human Mars mission will have been launched.

The year 2036 would then see the launch of the EOI stage before the 2037 launches of the MOI and TMI stages on two separate SLS launches.

In 2038, a crewed mission of Orion and SLS would bring a check out crew on a restock mission to the Mars Transit Habitat — which would have returned to Cis-lunar space in late 2035 from the human Phobos mission.

If those checkouts and restocks are successful, the first crew for Mars would then launch in 2039 to the Mars Transit Habitat before departing Cis-lunar space for Mars.

Assuming a nominal mission, a single SLS flight would be needed in 2042 to launch an Orion capsule to retrieve the first Mars crew and their cargo following their return to Cis-lunar space.

For the first human mission to Mars, SLS’s launch campaign will see it deliver 630.7t of mass to Cis-lunar space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/02/2015 06:45 pm
You're right, of course. NSF always has the full scoop.

Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 10/02/2015 08:20 pm
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.

Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.

Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?

Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!

No we're not. We're sending pork to particular states and districts that used to build STS parts. No money at all is allocated to do anything on Mars. And likely never will be.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 10/02/2015 08:29 pm
I'm pretty sure that Jim meant "there is now only one pad for SLS", since NASA leased pad 39A to SpaceX. The implication is that SLS cannot have a higher launch rate e.g. Shuttle because of the limitation of a single SLS launch pad 39B.

There is one pad and one ML. Original maps of Complex 39 show locations for 5 potential pads, but it is doubtful in the extreme that any more would ever be developed. Even if they wanted to, environmental impact reviews would most surely prevent it anyway.

Wow, I didn't think it was that hard of a question. Or that the possibility of a second ML being built was so far out there. And I never said anything about building any more launch pads. I just wanted to know if making a clean pad was of any benefit whatsoever to possible future launch rates.

Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?

Remember, we're on a Journey to Mars(TM)!!

No we're not. We're sending pork to particular states and districts that used to build STS parts. No money at all is allocated to do anything on Mars. And likely never will be.

I keep hearing that.  But one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget.

Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/02/2015 08:41 pm
one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget. [...] Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.

Some aspects of ISS get mentioned a lot. In particular, commercial crew. It's a bit circuitous but commercial crew removes dependence on Russia, and thus enables replacing ISS with a new international LEO station in which Russia is not one of the partners. The perfect vehicle to launch that station (or at least the lion's share of its mass) is ... SLS!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 10/02/2015 08:54 pm
When FH comes on line, two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS.  With reusable rockets with SpaceX and engines with ULA, prices to launch will come down and SLS will become too expensive to launch except for very large payloads.  Even then Vulcan with ACES and solids could do probably 40 tons or more.  A 3 core Vulcan could match FH from Space X.  As reuse comes down, used rockets or engines will make cargo type payloads much cheaper.  SLS will only be able to deliver 105 tons to LEO and it won't be cheap.  Also with SEP tugs to move 40-50 ton payloads around, in orbit or L1 assembly for large spacecraft to Mars or the probes to the outer solar system can be done with the reusable rockets.  I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's especially if SpaceX comes through with the reusable MCT.  SLS should have been made reusable, with fly back or land back boosters, a plug nozzle engine on the core to land back the core.  Then it would have been less expensive to operate being reusable. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/02/2015 09:10 pm
two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's 

Yes, that might happen. By then we'll know so much more about SpaceX and Bigelow and what they can accomplish! Perhaps they will be able to work with ESA and JAXA on an international LEO station. It might be fun to discuss that on another thread.

The question that's relevant here is whether NASA could leverage its ISS experience with ESA and JAXA in a fairly straight-forward way to create an International Skylab, launched on SLS. I think they could!

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 10/02/2015 09:16 pm
two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. [...] I predict SLS will be cancelled by the mid 2020's 

Yes, that might happen. By then we'll know so much more about SpaceX and Bigelow and what they can accomplish! Perhaps they will be able to work with ESA and JAXA on an international LEO station. It might be fun to discuss that on another thread.

The question that's relevant here is whether NASA could leverage its ISS experience with ESA and JAXA in a fairly straight-forward way to create an International Skylab, launched on SLS. I think they could!

NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station. SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.

ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/02/2015 09:50 pm
Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.

I don't know about that.  As far as I know, it's got a decent shot at being the only rocket available capable of lofting a BA-2100...  not that you'd necessarily want to start with something of that scale, but the fact remains that Bigelow has advertised the thing...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: robertross on 10/02/2015 10:48 pm
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

1.  Not true.  Space/volume does not determine capability.  The tooling does.  Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users

2.  See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted.  Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.

Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?

~Jon

Somewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/03/2015 02:11 am
Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?

Ha! You should have seen my post before I self-censored it. LOL.

So, now the consensus is that there will only be one ML, thus the minimum time between SLS launches will be however long it takes to stack one up in the VAB. Does anyone have an idea about how long that may be?

Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.)

I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?

And, going back to the minimum time between SLS launches, how large is the launch window for Mars missions in the "on" years? Is it possible that a delay in the stacking of the second SLS in a sequence would cause it to miss the launch window?

Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 10/03/2015 02:59 am
1.  Someone said, somewhere here, that when facility to manufacture Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were for 6 Saturn V's per year.  So, the facility can at least do 6.

2.  The VAB can process at least 4 at a time.  It has 4 bays.  They would have to build at least 4 platforms.   

1.  Not true.  Space/volume does not determine capability.  The tooling does.  Anyways, it is a shared facility and there are other users

2.  See above. The 4 bays were never fully outfitted and even during shuttle, only two were outfitted.  Also, there is not only one pad for SLS.

Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?

~Jon

Somewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.

Ok, so I'm not misremembering things. So that would prevent having more than two SLS's in the building at any given time. One of the joys of big SRBs...

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/03/2015 03:00 am
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.

Gerstenmaier said just this year:

At some point this space station will wear out and there needs to be a follow-on space station,”...“What we’re hoping for is that the private sector picks that up.

But based on comments NASA has made about the importance of the ISS for preparing for Mars, I'd say they are talking about an LEO commercial station.

Quote
SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.

You have to consider what the goal of a cis-lunar station would be, within the context of NASA's current direction.  If it's to continue the work the ISS was not able to complete in support of going to Mars, then putting it 1,000X further away is not going to be very economical.

As to possible commercial stations, NASA did a study (referenced in this NSF article (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/)) that said a notional Bigelow BA-2100 could fly on a Falcon Heavy.  And if it is a commercial station, then cost will be a big factor for whoever is building it.  Certainly an SLS could lift it, but whether it makes sense from a cost standpoint is another matter.

Quote
ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.

All of those countries have challenging economies right now, with some more than others (i.e. Russia).  I think China will proceed with their station plans for LEO, but I think it will be a while until everyone else has the money to pursue another expensive space endeavor.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/03/2015 03:25 am
As to possible commercial stations, NASA did a study (referenced in this NSF article (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/affordable-habitats-more-buck-rogers-less-money-bigelow/)) that said a notional Bigelow BA-2100 could fly on a Falcon Heavy.

That's not exactly what it said:

"Although the Olympus module is being offered as a potential payload for SLS, the Gate 1 Report indicates that it could possibly also be launched on a Falcon Heavy."

As I understand it, there is/was some doubt as to whether the mass will end up low enough.  Certainly the earlier numbers were nowhere near what Falcon Heavy could manage, and scaling a BA-330 by the 2/3 power of the volume difference ends up close to 70 tonnes.  However, the reports are not public, and I can't find the relevant portion in L2.

More to the point, it seems SLS was the LV of choice when that report was submitted (it wasn't a NASA study as such; it was a submission by Bigelow under a Space Act Agreement).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/03/2015 03:53 am
As I understand it, there is/was some doubt as to whether the mass will end up low enough.

Keep in mind that the BA-2100 is a concept, not reality.  It can be whatever Bigelow wants it to be - SLS sized, Falcon Heavy sized, etc.  It will depend on what the requirements are, and so far there are no firm requirements.  It certainly is not part of the current Mars plan, and that plan consumes all of NASA's forecasted budget for two decades.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/03/2015 04:13 am
You do realize the name actually includes its volume in cubic metres, right?

It is, as you say, a concept, and it's already been thought of.  It's roughly SLS-sized.  It might fit on Falcon Heavy; that would be great.

EDIT:  After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it.  Some sort of upgrade would be required.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 10/03/2015 04:14 am
\Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.)

I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?

The once every two years is for direct TMI using chemical propulsion. With SEP you shouldn't have the time constraint.

When FH comes on line, two Bigelow 330 modules will be about the size of the ISS now, with only two FH launches, at about half the price of SLS. 

Launching payloads to LEO smaller than 50 mt should go to FH or Vulcan whenever possible. Your example of launching a new LEO commercial space station is a great idea. In my view SLS and commercial vehicles should complement each other. SLS handles big payloads (above 50 mt) to LEO and the BLEO crew and cargo while FH and Vulcan handle smaller missions to LEO and BEO (say launching a Dragon as a resupply craft to a lunar space station).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: a_langwich on 10/03/2015 04:15 am

I keep hearing that.  But one thing no one mentions is the $4 Billion ISS budget.

Once that program is done, the entire NASA HSF budget of $9 Billion would be enough to support a Phobos/Mars program with international support imo.

That's funny, because I keep hearing THAT, once we kill off ISS that's $4 billion to spend on wonderful things.  Let's take a look, shall we?

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-021.pdf

Table 1, you can follow along...

ISS budget request for FY 2016 = 3.106 billion. 
Subdivided into
  -- commercial crew and cargo  = 1.606 billion
  -- operations and maintenance = 1.106 billion
  -- research = 394 million

You can dig through the OIG audit of some of the contracts for the different areas, and ask yourself:  is this capability going to disappear, or is it likely going to be needed in some other form going forward? 

For example, commercial crew and commercial cargo are arguably driving some of the biggest transformations in the launch industry.  Sure, after some future president knifes the ISS, those won't be needed...but isn't it reasonable to assume NASA will still want some crew and cargo transported to some other LEO destination, even if it were a commercial station?  As far as I can see, the need for LEO operations will never cease as long as humans are spacefaring, it's just a matter of how to partition it into commercial and government-led.

Do you see Bigelow stepping up to a rigorous permanently manned mission control for a permanently manned station, capable of safely overseeing station operations, conducting research or collecting data over year-long time scales?  That's probably what NASA would need, if they were going to be a customer.  I don't see that, but to be fair they may develop quite a bit if they get going.  But that's another sticking point, right now it looks like Bigelow has given up on a non-governmental marketplace, and so in addition to commercial crew and commercial cargo, they would need a commercial station funding contract. 

Or what about the only manned Mission Control Center, the only manned mission planning office, or the Neutral Buoyancy Lab, or the spacesuit design and testing office?  Isn't it likely they will be required in whatever future manned endeavors NASA undertakes?

Rather than eyeing the ISS budget as free extra money, it's more realistic to assume that ISS Operations will probably transition to BEO Operations, and there will likely still be a fair amount of NASA-supported LEO activity.  Supported, I should say, not as a jobs program, but because the needs/benefits outweigh the costs.

Even the Boeing contract to support ISS will have a very similar counterpart in an future contracts to support SLS, Orion, and the various habitation and exploration modules.

Killing ISS then, in my opinion, should* free up very little to nothing to help DEVELOP new modules or systems, but it might get converted to the budget slice for operations and management of SLS and BEO missions.

*I say SHOULD because of course in some fantasy world you could shut the doors at JSFC, and throw away the manned mission control capability, and the spacesuit expertise, and the planning and Neutral Buoyancy Center testing, and so on, and use nearly the full $3 billion for development.  But it seems fairly clear this would be a colossal blunder--sacrificing capabilities that will be needed in the near future, and expensive-to-impossible to re-constitute at the same expertise level--and politically impossible as well.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/03/2015 04:24 am
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.

I agree that powerful people (including I think NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden) say that, and it reflects the view of the President of the United States. But in 2020 I do not believe Charlie Bolden will be NASA Administrator, and I am 100% certain President Obama will no longer occupy the Oval Office!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/03/2015 05:49 am

NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station. SLS could be used for a cis-lunar station. Perhaps a gateway station at EML-2.

ESA, JAXA, and Russia could work with China on the Chinese space station. Bigelow or someone else could build a commercial space station. Obviously, SLS would not be a part of that.

NASA may be willing to rent time on a LEO spacestation. If it rents large amounts of time NASA may be able to convince Congress to buy/lease the spacestation. Although the politicians may want to get involved with the negotiations.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 10/03/2015 12:02 pm
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.

I agree that powerful people (including I think NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden) say that, and it reflects the view of the President of the United States. But in 2020 I do not believe Charlie Bolden will be NASA Administrator, and I am 100% certain President Obama will no longer occupy the Oval Office!

It reflects the view of many at NASA
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MP99 on 10/03/2015 01:33 pm
Also, IIRC doesn't the quantity-distance rules on the SRBs mean they are only allowed to have two SLS vehicles in the VAB at one time, or am I misremembering that detail?

~Jon

Somewhere on L2 there was nice overview of the VAB facility and the maximum number of SRB segments allowed in there. I thought it was 10 segments total.

Ok, so I'm not misremembering things. So that would prevent having more than two SLS's in the building at any given time. One of the joys of big SRBs...

~Jon

Each SLS is 10 segments. ;-)

Cheers, Martin

PS am I wrong in vaguely remembering 16 segments (two complete Shuttles) back in the day?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/03/2015 02:57 pm
EDIT:  After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it.  Some sort of upgrade would be required.

Well talk with Bigelow about that, but if the moniker "BA-2100" is what bothers you, change the name to BA-2000, or BA-1782.  Remember it doesn't have a firm requirement - it's notional.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/03/2015 03:51 pm
EDIT:  After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it.  Some sort of upgrade would be required.

Well talk with Bigelow about that, but if the moniker "BA-2100" is what bothers you, change the name to BA-2000, or BA-1782.  Remember it doesn't have a firm requirement - it's notional.
It is speculated that by 2024 SpaceX would have its BFR flying but maybe not the MCT so they could use that vehicle with an interim expendable US to launch SLS sized cargo (15m diameter and 100mt+ weight payloads).

But a BA-2100 may not be what NASA may use for a second generation station. NASA likes proven tech for use with HSF. BA-330s would have collected a few years of operational experience by then so a station based on 3 or 6 of those would be sufficient. If they pack them with equipment and only have 3 crew for each module a 6 BA-330 station would be a crew size of 18 three times the current crew size. That would equate to 12 cargo flights per year and 8 crew flights (3-6 crew each flight) to service the station. US budget per year in cargo and crew = $1.5B + $1.2B for the module(lease or operational support and other NASA operational costs) for a total yearly budget of $2.7B. NASA could not afford anything bigger. Using the CRS and CC capabilities that would be available at the end of life of the ISS in 2024.

There are many options other than using the SLS for a follow on commercial ISS that do not require either the SLS or anything other than existing or close to existing vehicles (CC and FH in 2 years or less [2017], SLS could be considered in this list since first flight is only a year latter in 2018).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 10/03/2015 07:38 pm
Feeling a bit sensitive today? Where did all that come from?

Ha! You should have seen my post before I self-censored it. LOL.

So, now the consensus is that there will only be one ML, thus the minimum time between SLS launches will be however long it takes to stack one up in the VAB. Does anyone have an idea about how long that may be?

Which then brings us back to the Mars mission proposals mentioned in the recent article, as Khadgars kindly pointed out. One proposal has two SLS launches of equipment to Mars in 2034, 2035, and 2036. (Five landers and the EOI stage.)

I'm no orbital expert, but I thought that Mars missions were normally spaced out every two years due to the relationship between Earth's and Mars' orbits. Is it possible to launch large payloads to Mars in the "off" years?

And, going back to the minimum time between SLS launches, how large is the launch window for Mars missions in the "on" years? Is it possible that a delay in the stacking of the second SLS in a sequence would cause it to miss the launch window?

Thanks.
You are correct that the window opens every two years. There can be up to a few months where a launch can make use of it. However we are likely to see any Mars bound depart from LDRO or L2. Over the previous two years the hardware would have been positioned there and assembled. The last launch necessary would likely be the crew. A couple weeks margin could be included in making the Mars window by having the crew launch before the craft needed to leave for Mars. SEP could open the window up a bit more too. Srubs will happen but the planners will account for that and draw the schedules up so that things are not so rushed before the window closes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/03/2015 09:11 pm
NASA has stated they won't build another LEO space station.

I agree that powerful people [...] say that

It reflects the view of many at NASA

I believe that. Let's assume it reflects the views of every technically astute person at NASA. That still tells us almost nothing about the views of the powerful decision makers. ;)

(Note: I don't want NASA to invest in another LEO station. Like so many others I want a cis-lunar station. But I try not to confuse what I want with what I think is likely!)

As regards space stations, like with launch systems, NASA will comply with a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Those decision makers consider things like the actions of other space agencies. With high probability, Russia will continuously keep a cosmonaut in space after ISS is decommissioned. Congress will want an astronaut to be continuously  in space as well. But nothing supporting that goal will be accomplished until it is almost too late. Then Boeing will offer to use SLS infrastructure at Michoud to manufacture a Skylab II. For those lobbyists, it's going to be almost a "slam dunk."

(Again note: If a United States based commercial station were already operating in LEO, we can hope NASA would use that to house its astronauts. Again though, let's avoid confusing our hopes with our predictions.)

It is speculated that by 2024 SpaceX would have its BFR flying but maybe not the MCT so they could use that vehicle with an interim expendable US to launch SLS sized cargo (15m diameter and 100mt+ weight payloads).

It's all speculation, but I doubt it helps predict the future to discuss an interim upper stage that hasn't been mentioned by the company claiming it will one day make the boost stage! A Bigelow station launched on FH would be quite plausible if there were a buyer for it that wanted to attempt to operate it at a profit. Paint me dubious about that last part, though.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/03/2015 10:15 pm
EDIT:  After double-checking a bit, it seems my memory was correct; from what we know, BA-2100 is not close to being light enough for the 53-tonne Falcon Heavy to lift it.  Some sort of upgrade would be required.

Well talk with Bigelow about that, but if the moniker "BA-2100" is what bothers you, change the name to BA-2000, or BA-1782.  Remember it doesn't have a firm requirement - it's notional.

This whole discussion is notional, raised in answer to another poster's "obviously".  You're fighting a straw man here.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 10/04/2015 10:50 am
To exactly which document do you refer?  If to "ESD Integration; Budget Availability Scenarios" dated 19 August 2011 (attached to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=19892.msg811814#msg811814)), where does the statement appear?

Right below every sand chart, it says the following:

FY11:  21st CGS = CxP GO; MPCV = CxP Orion + EVA + MO; SLS =Ares I FS (Booster / Avionics), Ares I J-2X (US Engine), SSP SSME (Core Engine), SSP ET (Core Stage), Ares I PM / VI / S&MA / FITO (Prog Integ)

I may have overstated the clarity of the statement somewhat; how would you interpret this?

The notation below each sand chart looks to me like a broad-brush description of the hardware elements.  We can't take it too literally, though.  For example, while SLS's core stage superficially looks just like a Space Shuttle ET, it is in fact quite different, if for no other reason than the very different loads it bears.

Booz Allen Hamilton produced a contemporaneous critique (summary attached, for those who may not have seen it earlier) which described the cost savings NASA assumed for Orion/SLS as poorly justified.  Regardless of whether the criticism was correct, it does show that the ESD budget scenarios assumed future cost savings and were not based solely on Shuttle/Ares costs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/07/2015 02:33 am
For example, while SLS's core stage superficially looks just like a Space Shuttle ET, it is in fact quite different, if for no other reason than the very different loads it bears.

As an aerospace engineer who's been following the SD-HLV saga in some detail since 2007, I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

I'm not proposing that they copied total costs for the referenced elements exactly; I would assume they used more detailed data as a basis for their estimates, taking the necessary changes into account.

Quote
Booz Allen Hamilton produced a contemporaneous critique (summary attached, for those who may not have seen it earlier) which described the cost savings NASA assumed for Orion/SLS as poorly justified.

Poorly justified in the sense that NASA did not provide sufficient rationale to BAH for the savings they incorporated into the estimates, not in the sense that the savings were unlikely to be realized.  According to people who read it, the actual report was clearer about this distinction than the executive summary.

Quote
Regardless of whether the criticism was correct, it does show that the ESD budget scenarios assumed future cost savings and were not based solely on Shuttle/Ares costs.

Note that the ESD Integration document and the BAH report summary you attached are dated the same day.  Note also that the BAH report talks about the cost estimation cycle that produced the estimates they were critiquing having wrapped up in June of that year.  Case #1 in the ESD Integration document is labeled "6/27/11 ESD Preliminary Cost Estimate"; the others are not.  In other words, what BAH was analyzing was, at most, specifically Case #1.  (I'm not certain we can assume even that, as BAH makes no mention of ESD Integration, instead referring to estimates generated independently by the SLS, MPCV, and 21CGS programs.)

I have already complained about how Case #1 seems to make unexplained assumptions about cost savings that allow it to actually fly missions during Block 2 development with an annual budget for SLS + ground systems of less than $2B in then-year dollars (the 2025 budget for those elements is about $1.3B in 2011 dollars), despite the fact that from Cases #3 and #4 it looks like the basic carrying costs are higher than that.

Case #4, the one I used for my analysis, looks a bit different.  At one flight per year, the 2025 budget for SLS + ground systems is $2.17B in 2009 dollars, compared with $2.06B in 2009 dollars for J-246 at the same flight rate.  As far as fixed costs are concerned, it seems to me that the only major difference between J-246 and SLS is the upper stage; SLS in that document uses a big J-2X-based second stage instead of an RL-10-based EDS.  (I wouldn't expect the DCSS to add much fixed cost, since SLS in this scenario represents a definite minority of its flights.)  The marginal cost of the first flight every year would also be somewhat higher (particularly since it includes two upper stages), but not by a vast amount (for reference, the original ICPS contract had options for two additional flight units, totaling $132M).  And I believe DIRECT's MO was to assume traditional contracting and then pack their numbers with margin (though I'm not sure how much would have been added to running costs as they are easier to predict than development costs).  Unless DIRECT's numbers excluded ground systems ($400M in 2009 dollars), I don't see "large" cost savings assumed here.

Either way, the presence of the element enumeration under Case #1's sand chart does indicate that it probably doesn't mean what I took it to mean.  Good catch.  (This should have been evident to me from Case #1's budget numbers; I'm not sure why I maintained otherwise in the first place...)

Perhaps this is why the document was never officially released.  It is a presentation, after all; perhaps it works better with a presenter available to explain the assumptions...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 10/13/2015 11:37 am
Thanks to BAH, we know that NASA built to-be-realized cost efficiencies into at least some of its scenarios.  There is a theoretical possibility that NASA applied those efficiencies only to Case 1 and not to other cases, but that's rather unlikely and would be positively disingenuous.  No justification has yet been presented for "the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares."

You infer that inflation has been built into ESD's estimates.  How do you do that?  With budgets generally flat-lining, except for an explicit in-space-elements "wedge" in later years, it looks to me like everything is priced in FY 2012 dollars.  "RY" might mean "real": I suppose to people who spend their workdays with terms like "FY", "CY" and "TY, " a construction like "RY" might seem reasonable.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 10/13/2015 03:50 pm
If they are going to build a station, I agree it should be at L1 or L2.  I also wish they would build a rotating station at least with moon gravity.  I would really like them to build one based on Mars gravity, to test long term effects of Martian gravity on humans.  The L point station should also be modular enough to have replacements periodically for continuous operations.  It should also be able to expand into a fuel depot for Mars transits, and a warehouse type depot for Mars cargo departures. 

If it is a LEO station, it should at least be a fuel depot with not only LOX, but liquid methane, and argon or xenon for SEP tug refueling.  It could be manned continuously to monitor the fuels, and make maybe have robotic arms for helping SEP tugs refuel, or various vehicles to dock and refuel for out flights.  It could be a holdover for astronauts going to and from the Moon, an L station or Mars.  If they are going to the moon, they would have time during refueling, to exercise at the station or relax.  Cramped trips to the moon and back, it would be a break.  Eventually reusable moon transports could fly between the LEO refueling station, and an L station.  Then there could be reusable moon landers transporting between an L station and the moon's surface. 

All this can be future planned 100 ton launches from the SLS, to minimize in space assembly.  Smaller components could be launched using existing launchers, FH, and Vulcan.  Until SpaceX gets the BFR going. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/14/2015 12:10 am
If they are going to build a station, I agree it should be at L1 or L2.  I also wish they would build a rotating station at least with moon gravity.  I would really like them to build one based on Mars gravity, to test long term effects of Martian gravity on humans.

FYI, here are two threads that are more relevant for space stations:

Space Policy Discussion / Re: Space Stations after 2024 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38612.0)

Advanced Concepts / Re: Realistic, near-term, rotating Space Station (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34036.0)

Quote
The L point station should also be modular enough to have replacements periodically for continuous operations.  It should also be able to expand into a fuel depot for Mars transits, and a warehouse type depot for Mars cargo departures.

Using Earth analogies, we don't combine hotels with gas stations, for a number of reasons, but even in space I'm not sure there would be enough synergy or need to combine them.

Quote
All this can be future planned 100 ton launches from the SLS, to minimize in space assembly.  Smaller components could be launched using existing launchers, FH, and Vulcan.  Until SpaceX gets the BFR going.

I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).  And using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/14/2015 06:40 am
No justification has yet been presented for "the ESD Integration estimates were based directly on Shuttle and Ares."

I already acknowledged that the estimate sourcing probably wasn't as direct as I initially thought.  Actually, it seems I was more careful last time I discussed this, but this time I got overzealous and misinterpreted my memory of the discussion...  Sorry about that.

Quote
Thanks to BAH, we know that NASA built to-be-realized cost efficiencies into at least some of its scenarios.

That's assuming the estimate they were reviewing was actually the same one as in the document, which seems reasonable but is not yet solidly established as far as I am aware.

Quote
There is a theoretical possibility that NASA applied those efficiencies only to Case 1 and not to other cases, but that's rather unlikely and would be positively disingenuous.

Unless the bulk of these "efficiencies" involved nerfing the infrastructure and similar measures, as a desperation move to force the annual cost to fit under the budget bogey, rather than technological and contracting improvements.  This does not seem inconsistent with what BAH say in the report, or with the contents of the ESD Integration document itself.

Also, the cost estimators would have been working with BAH prior to the ESD Integration presentation on August 19, so they might have reacted to early feedback by producing additional estimates that relaxed some of the efficiency measures to fill out a more reasonable budget.  It's hard to tell without the verbal presentation (and presumably question period) that would have accompanied the slides at NASA - this was not, after all, an official release...

...

As I explained above, while there may be a modest amount of efficiency gain built into Case #4, it matches J-246 closely enough that I doubt anything radical was present in the numbers.  (BAH didn't specify what exactly they meant by "large"...)  Also keep in mind that this document predates all the reports of stuff that's actually been done, some of which does seem to qualify as radical...

There's a fairly small marginal cost difference evident between #4a and #4b, which makes the huge jump from Case #1 look outright suspicious; hence my assumption that the latter contained additional measures.  However, it occurs to me that it might be somewhat explicable; DIRECT budgeted several hundred million dollars a year in JUS fixed costs, so the lack of a large upper stage might explain most of the difference.  It does not, however, explain how they managed to fit "Competitive Booster" in by 2023...  maybe that's what BAH was complaining about...

Quote
You infer that inflation has been built into ESD's estimates.  How do you do that?  With budgets generally flat-lining, except for an explicit in-space-elements "wedge" in later years, it looks to me like everything is priced in FY 2012 dollars.

Look at what happens in the Senate cases once development ends.  There's a clear inflation in the ops budget lines year-to-year, and it basically matches the 2011 NASA New Start Inflation Index out-year value of 2.6%.

Besides, BAH states that inflation was incorporated into all three program estimates, though MPCV used outdated tables.

Quote
"RY" might mean "real": I suppose to people who spend their workdays with terms like "FY", "CY" and "TY, " a construction like "RY" might seem reasonable.

I looked it up.  It's "real year" dollars, which at NASA means "then year", ie: inflated, dollars.  This is apparently different from how some other organizations use "real year"...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/14/2015 06:44 am
I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).

Those are LEO masses.  For an L-point station you'd be looking at much smaller units, unless you postulate additional propulsion technologies (depots, large electric tugs).

Quote
And using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/14/2015 02:37 pm
I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).

Those are LEO masses.  For an L-point station you'd be looking at much smaller units, unless you postulate additional propulsion technologies (depots, large electric tugs).

If we're moving construction mass beyond LEO, then using SEP tugs or some other form of more efficient transportation would be used - we don't have to be constrained by the limitations of an upper stage.

Quote
Quote
And using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362

I'm not paying money for some 12 year old random study to try and figure out whether you have a point or not.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/14/2015 03:16 pm
I'm not aware of any design for a rotating station that requires 100 ton modular components (i.e. SLS), or even 50 ton components (i.e. FH).

Those are LEO masses.  For an L-point station you'd be looking at much smaller units, unless you postulate additional propulsion technologies (depots, large electric tugs).

If we're moving construction mass beyond LEO, then using SEP tugs or some other form of more efficient transportation would be used - we don't have to be constrained by the limitations of an upper stage.

Quote
Quote
And using Earth analogies, we build the largest buildings in the world using the same sized semi-trailer trucks that we use for much building small houses, so I think $/kg will be the more important metric for determining which type of transportation is used, not size.

http://www.jbis.org.uk/paper.php?p=2003.56.362

I'm not paying money for some 12 year old random study to try and figure out whether you have a point or not.
The point is true but only for the case where the number of total modules flown on the larger booster is less than a factor of 3 than the number of unique module designs. This holds for using a comparison of FHR and SLS where <40mt vs 100mt and a price difference factor for launch of 5.3. The cost of design of a module does not vary due to its size unless you get to very small building elements vs complete large modules. But manufacturing costs do vary based on module size. So for an ISS like station using SLS would be about 50% cheaper than using FHR to put all the same capability up in larger modules than using smaller modules with a smaller booster.

But for a much larger station whose factor of total modules to unique modules is 5 or 10 then using the smaller much cheaper LV gives a savings of 18% to 35% over using larger modules and the more expensive larger booster.

The point is that the economics models have assumptions and that your overall station design can drive one method of launch to be significantly cheaper overall than another. You would have to specify how you would design the station the, number of unique systems and their total weight per system, if the systems can be in smaller units but just more of them or if the units cannot be shrunk and have to be divided into sub-units, and if there are required redundancies involved for the systems or not , etc.

There is no way to definitively make the statement that one launch method will decrease your total station cost vs another unless you have some sort of preliminary design for the systems to be used and all the capabilities to be incorporated. Then you can model out the design economically to determine which direction to go small cheap $/kg launcher vs larger high cost $/kg launcher (we are talking about a factor of grater than 2 in payload size between launchers).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 10/14/2015 05:04 pm
@oldAtlas_Eguy you do realize that a SLS that can put 100mt in LEO is a Block 2 variant. We only have the Block-1 and maybe the Block-1B available for the foreseeable future. I am guessing the SLS can get roughly 50 or 60 mt up to LEO with a non-Block-2 variant.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/14/2015 05:10 pm
@oldAtlas_Eguy you do realize that a SLS that can put 100mt in LEO is a Block 2 variant. We only have the Block-1 and maybe the Block-1B available for the foreseeable future. I am guessing the SLS can get roughly 50 or 60 mt up to LEO with a non-Block-2 variant.

No, Block-2 is 130mt. Block-1 is basically the development version. Block-1B is the future workhorse variant, and it will put more than 100mt into LEO.

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 10/14/2015 05:27 pm
It could be manned continuously to monitor the fuels, and make maybe have robotic arms for helping SEP tugs refuel, or various vehicles to dock and refuel for out flights.

I do not think it needs to be continuously manned to do those things.  If the USAF is talking about assmbling large structures in space using entirely remotely operated technology.   And continuous occupation at an EM Lagrange point has nasty levels to worry about.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/14/2015 05:48 pm
@oldAtlas_Eguy you do realize that a SLS that can put 100mt in LEO is a Block 2 variant. We only have the Block-1 and maybe the Block-1B available for the foreseeable future. I am guessing the SLS can get roughly 50 or 60 mt up to LEO with a non-Block-2 variant.

No, Block-2 is 130mt. Block-1 is basically the development version. Block-1B is the future workhorse variant, and it will put more than 100mt into LEO.

Mark S.
The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: 93143 on 10/14/2015 09:06 pm
The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.

Did you read the paper or is that your opinion?  You do kinda sound like you have a source for your numbers...

I was referencing the abstract, not to prove that SLS is always better but to show that $/kg is not necessarily the more important metric as Coastal Ron suggested.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/14/2015 11:37 pm
The basic point I was trying to make was about the validity of the economic model. To say using one LV over another would be generally less total cost cannot be made, it is a specific case by case situation.

Did you read the paper or is that your opinion?  You do kinda sound like you have a source for your numbers...

I was referencing the abstract, not to prove that SLS is always better but to show that $/kg is not necessarily the more important metric as Coastal Ron suggested.
I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs. Its another form of economies of scale. If the quantities are high enough the high costs of design for each unique design can be overcome by the high number of identical modules reducing the total cost of the system. Launch costs are actually only a portion of the total costs at most 50% or even a lot less at almost 10%. Like I said because of the multiple variables at play singling out any one variable as the definitive decider is an error. Because launch costs are an additional cost and not the most significant cost reduction of launch costs does not have as much effect as some would believe and in some cases other cost increases are greater than the cost savings using a cheaper launcher.

The only somewhat rule of thumb is if the larger launcher is also the cheaper $/kg then it may be the best solution but watch out for volume (faring space for the payload) may be a limiting item on the larger LV making a smaller booster that also has a large volume to payload weight possibly a better value.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 10/15/2015 12:35 am
I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs.

This assumes the construction method is based on assembling modules, and that may not be the ultimate design, or at least not a majority of the ultimate design.  For instance, with a rotating space station quite a bit of the total mass will likely be taken up by supports and floors and such, not living space, and those would likely be more mass dense than living space modules would be (with no real designs, "likely" is the operative word).

However, this discussion about rotating space stations is really premature, since based on my calculations the mass of such stations, even if they are only .5G or so, would be far, far bigger than the mass of the ISS, which is 450mT.  And I don't see any funded need for such a structure in the near future.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 10/15/2015 02:35 pm
I just created my own simplistic eco model of the problem and relationships and checked what the results were. It showed that while the $/kg difference between the two launchers is important it is not the controlling factor but the factor of total modules to unique module designs.

This assumes the construction method is based on assembling modules, and that may not be the ultimate design, or at least not a majority of the ultimate design.  For instance, with a rotating space station quite a bit of the total mass will likely be taken up by supports and floors and such, not living space, and those would likely be more mass dense than living space modules would be (with no real designs, "likely" is the operative word).

However, this discussion about rotating space stations is really premature, since based on my calculations the mass of such stations, even if they are only .5G or so, would be far, far bigger than the mass of the ISS, which is 450mT.  And I don't see any funded need for such a structure in the near future.
Actually the eco module applies to even a single large unit flown on SLS where it takes 3 unique units flown on FHR. But if it was 3 identical units flown on SLS and then 3 flights each of 3 unique units on FHR there may be a cost savings using FHR over that of SLS. Like I said it is a case by case economic analysis problem to determine which will be cheaper due to the added costs of designing multiple units vs a single larger unit. It is that last that is the economic problem. If the larger unit can be substituted by using say 3 identical smaller units then SLS losses hands down in total costs for the system (Launch + unit development+unit manufacturing+on orbit assembly(if needed)). This problem is basically due to the high cost of development vs the cost of manufacture once the design has been done. This ratio is usually somewhere around 5 (development/design to manufacturing). This means that quantity and cost of launch are related to total system costs. High quantity and smaller lower launch costs will equal lower total system costs but exactly where this crossover point is for any given unit is a function of the costs for the unit (design and manufacturing + the number of launches at a launch cost for a specific booster).

Here Unit = a unique payload of some kind
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 10/21/2015 08:17 pm
Quote
The L point station should also be modular enough to have replacements periodically for continuous operations.  It should also be able to expand into a fuel depot for Mars transits, and a warehouse type depot for Mars cargo departures.

Using Earth analogies, we don't combine hotels with gas stations, for a number of reasons, but even in space I'm not sure there would be enough synergy or need to combine them.

Since it is for short stay and for work rather than play the spacestation would be more a motel than hotel.

In Britain motels and petrol stations are combined - they are called motorway service stations. I do accept the food & bedrooms are low quality and the fuel is expensive. Different buildings but on the same campus.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 10/22/2015 10:32 pm
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/23/2015 03:49 am
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?

I don't think the adapter is foam covered. It's just painted orange to match the tanks for some reason. It has to be painted, so why not orange (other than flying carrot jokes)?

But in my opinion, it should be white. The tanks are only orange because that's the natural color of the foam insulation, and they don't want to paint it, in order to save weight. Not because orange is the cool color now. Or ever, in spite of OITNB.

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ISP on 10/23/2015 05:39 am
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?

I don't think the adapter is foam covered. It's just painted orange to match the tanks for some reason. It has to be painted, so why not orange (other than flying carrot jokes)?

But in my opinion, it should be white. The tanks are only orange because that's the natural color of the foam insulation, and they don't want to paint it, in order to save weight. Not because orange is the cool color now. Or ever, in spite of OITNB.

Mark S.

The LVSA is covered in foam now. Not sure why, but it is, per this:

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system)

Quote
Critical design reviews for the individual SLS elements of the core stage, boosters and engines were completed successfully as part of this milestone. Also as part of the CDR, the program concluded the core stage of the rocket and Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter will remain orange, the natural color of the insulation that will cover those elements, instead of painted white.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 10/23/2015 05:50 am
Given the anticipated production rate why not paint each LVSA with a unique color pattern, so in photos of the vehicles it will always be easy to identify them? Or maybe to get that retro "Jupiter" look they seem to love they could paint on the vehicle's serial number in big black letters using H-U-N-T-S-V-I-L-E-X code?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 10/23/2015 09:11 am
As an aside, the image above is likely reversed (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25741.msg766452#msg766452), the actual designation being AMXHA.

EDIT:  Corrected link.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 10/23/2015 06:04 pm
So since the adapter/interstage is shown as being foam covered as well as the core would the two likely be joined before foam is applied or can the foam be applied to both and then connect the two parts?

I don't think the adapter is foam covered. It's just painted orange to match the tanks for some reason. It has to be painted, so why not orange (other than flying carrot jokes)?

But in my opinion, it should be white. The tanks are only orange because that's the natural color of the foam insulation, and they don't want to paint it, in order to save weight. Not because orange is the cool color now. Or ever, in spite of OITNB.

Mark S.

The LVSA is covered in foam now. Not sure why, but it is, per this:

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system)

Quote
Critical design reviews for the individual SLS elements of the core stage, boosters and engines were completed successfully as part of this milestone. Also as part of the CDR, the program concluded the core stage of the rocket and Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter will remain orange, the natural color of the insulation that will cover those elements, instead of painted white.

Thanks for the correction! I missed that.

Like you, I have no idea why they would put foam on the LVSA. Does anyone else have any insight on that decision?

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 10/26/2015 09:20 pm
I have no idea why they would put foam on the LVSA. Does anyone else have any insight on that decision?

The answer is in Chris' and Chris's new article.

Quote
The post-CDR design does include more foam on the top end of the rocket after an additional decision included a call for the LVSA (Launch Vehicle to Stage Adaptor) to have foam on the outside, based on the latest thermal analysis.

Given the LVSA has the core stage LOX tank below it, the ICPS LOX tank inside, and the ICPS LH2 tank above it, it is expected this area of the rocket will become cold during the final countdown and form ice on the outside.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 10/26/2015 09:23 pm
And from today's new article:

Quote
Presently, SLS Near-Term Look-Ahead schedules show that the VAC will be turned over from the construction contractor ESAB to Boeing at the end of this week on 31 October.

Delivery on Halloween Day, hope this doesn't turn out to be a Trick or Treat? delivery.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: dror on 10/27/2015 05:38 pm
Quote
... because for every pound of paint applied, a pound of payload delivery ability would have been removed from SLS’s capability.

Is that correct ?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 10/27/2015 06:12 pm
Quote
... because for every pound of paint applied, a pound of payload delivery ability would have been removed from SLS’s capability.

Is that correct ?
It is close to correct. Mass saved from the last rocket stage of any rocket will be close to the amount of extra payload mass. In the case where it has no upper stage the core is the last stage so not painting will add payload mass roughly equal to the mass of the unused paint. However SLS will also fly with the ICPS and EUS upper stages. So when flying in those configurations the mass savings in paint will increase payload but not at a near 1:1 ratio. It will still add a bit of payload mass though since the core is jettisoned late in flight. That paint needs to be hauled through a good amount of the imparted delta V.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BrightLight on 10/28/2015 05:27 pm
With the CDR for the SLS core passed as well as the Orion EM-2 in process - I'm getting to the point I believe SLS will actually fly!

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 11/10/2015 01:49 am


Like you, I have no idea why they would put foam on the LVSA. Does anyone else have any insight on that decision?

Mark S.
From a NASA blog post today, for what it's worth:
Quote
Also insulated with the orange foam is the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter, the conical section that connects the core stage with the upper stage. Because this section widens so much from top to bottom, it will experience extreme aerodynamic heating during launch, and the foam will protect the metal underneath from the high temperatures.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 11/10/2015 03:51 pm
That's interesting.  I wonder what makes launch heating on the SLS adapter more problematic than it would have been on the Saturn V second-third stage adapter.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 11/10/2015 03:59 pm
Maybe the use of SRBs increases aero heating?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Starlab90 on 11/11/2015 12:08 am
That's interesting.  I wonder what makes launch heating on the SLS adapter more problematic than it would have been on the Saturn V second-third stage adapter.

I'm pretty sure it's because SLS will have a higher max Q than the Saturn V did, but I need to double-check the numbers.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 11/11/2015 08:40 pm
Dedicated EM-1 section coming soon, but here's another cool overview of the flow to EM-1 via Chris Gebhardt:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/11/road-em-1-nasa-hardware-milestones-sls-debut-flight/

Another great story, Chris and Chris!

I was wondering about the booster segment arrival schedule, as described here:

Quote
Under the current Integrated Mission Milestone Summary, the Forward and Center SRB segments will arrive at the Kennedy Space Center in September and October 2017.

This will be followed by the delivery of the Aft Skirts in November/December 2017 and then the Aft segments of the SRBs in late-January/early-February 2018.

Finally, the Forward segments are currently slated to arrive at the Kennedy Space Center in early March 2018.

You describe the Forward segments arriving in both Sep/Oct 2017 and Mar 2018. And I don't see mention of the Forward-Center or Aft-Center segments anywhere in there. (or is it Center-Forward and Center-Aft?). Do you have schedule info for those segments also?

Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 12/09/2015 11:09 pm
I'd be curious to know how long it would take to build the SECOND SLS system. Meaning, there is so much time spent developing the tooling and doing the certification for this first SLS that I'm curious to see how long it would take just to build the second SLS once all this tooling and certification process has been completed.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/10/2015 02:21 am
I'd be curious to know how long it would take to build the SECOND SLS system. Meaning, there is so much time spent developing the tooling and doing the certification for this first SLS that I'm curious to see how long it would take just to build the second SLS once all this tooling and certification process has been completed.

Just to establish a best case for what Boeing can do, the outgoing SLS Program Manager at Boeing was quoted as saying (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

"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."

My background is in manufacturing operations, and quite often I've overseen the scheduling of new products (and sometimes factories).  Even with incremental upgrades of products there are usually processes that take time to dial in, and with the SLS the production rate is so low that they can't get enough experience to dial in their processes until many years from now.  Of course lots of time between builds means that the staff has a lot of time to do dry-runs in between production runs, so that could help them optimize their processes without having to actually build completed parts.

But still, you need to build the actual parts in order to validate that you know how to build the product within the planned/allocated amount of time.

My guess would be about a year for SLS-2, which is probably about 120-140% above the eventual production time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: bob the martian on 12/10/2015 02:51 pm
I'd be curious to know how long it would take to build the SECOND SLS system. Meaning, there is so much time spent developing the tooling and doing the certification for this first SLS that I'm curious to see how long it would take just to build the second SLS once all this tooling and certification process has been completed.

Just to establish a best case for what Boeing can do, the outgoing SLS Program Manager at Boeing was quoted as saying (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

"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."

My background is in manufacturing operations, and quite often I've overseen the scheduling of new products (and sometimes factories).  Even with incremental upgrades of products there are usually processes that take time to dial in, and with the SLS the production rate is so low that they can't get enough experience to dial in their processes until many years from now.  Of course lots of time between builds means that the staff has a lot of time to do dry-runs in between production runs, so that could help them optimize their processes without having to actually build completed parts.

But still, you need to build the actual parts in order to validate that you know how to build the product within the planned/allocated amount of time.

My guess would be about a year for SLS-2, which is probably about 120-140% above the eventual production time.

So, question - how are the staff at Michoud allocated for this?  Is it a small workforce that's working full-time on SLS, or a larger workforce that's part-time on SLS, part time on other projects?  IOW, is one, maybe two rockets a year enough to keep a full-time staff employed, much less keep their skills sharp?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/10/2015 04:28 pm
So, question - how are the staff at Michoud allocated for this?  Is it a small workforce that's working full-time on SLS, or a larger workforce that's part-time on SLS, part time on other projects?  IOW, is one, maybe two rockets a year enough to keep a full-time staff employed, much less keep their skills sharp?

I don't know, but my guess is that the factory is staffed with full-time workers, and that they don't work on any other contracts.  However they may not have hired all of the eventually positions they would need for full-rate production (which for now would be assumed to be 1/year).

And by virtue of how the SLS is assembled, I'm assuming people will move with the parts as they go through the different work stations, so they would need people with good general skills that can do many tasks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 12/10/2015 09:10 pm
So, question - how are the staff at Michoud allocated for this?  Is it a small workforce that's working full-time on SLS, or a larger workforce that's part-time on SLS, part time on other projects?  IOW, is one, maybe two rockets a year enough to keep a full-time staff employed, much less keep their skills sharp?

I don't know, but my guess is that the factory is staffed with full-time workers, and that they don't work on any other contracts.  However they may not have hired all of the eventually positions they would need for full-rate production (which for now would be assumed to be 1/year).

And by virtue of how the SLS is assembled, I'm assuming people will move with the parts as they go through the different work stations, so they would need people with good general skills that can do many tasks.

Back in the days of Saturn, I would have seen the validity in that. Nowadays, however, I would think that most work on machines of this complexity is CAM-robotic and that many of the technicians monitor the computer driven robotic tools. Human machinists lose skills over time if not practiced enough, and institutional memory is lost over time via attrition. In this day and age, however, a CAM program can be kept in storage devices and employed at any time. You have stated that you were involved in manufacturing, but were you involved in manufacturing sophisticated modern rockets? What did you manufacture and to what degree was the product dependent on a human machinist's skills versus modern integrated computer controlled robots? You have never mentioned the product field as being ultra-sophisticated, so I am not convinced that the manufacturing model you describe remains valid.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 12/11/2015 12:16 am
Back in the days of Saturn, I would have seen the validity in that. Nowadays, however, I would think that most work on machines of this complexity is CAM-robotic and that many of the technicians monitor the computer driven robotic tools.

No doubt we're more automated these days, but not everything is 100% automated.  And you have to remember that you can only successfully automate something that you completely understand.  So if you haven't built something yet, you can't completely understand if your solutions will work the first time, every time.  The experience with the SLS Vertical Assembly Center, which is a product, is an indication of that.

Quote
Human machinists lose skills over time if not practiced enough, and institutional memory is lost over time via attrition. In this day and age, however, a CAM program can be kept in storage devices and employed at any time.

I was around to see the changeover from cam actuated tools to CAM (Computer-aided manufacturing).  It's been interesting to see how the labor content, and type of labor changed.  Labor is still required though.

Quote
You have stated that you were involved in manufacturing, but were you involved in manufacturing sophisticated modern rockets? What did you manufacture and to what degree was the product dependent on a human machinist's skills versus modern integrated computer controlled robots?

To a certain extent, making components is pretty much the same regardless what the end product is.  Stamped, injection molded, milled, turned, drilled, welded - the processes haven't changed much, just the machinery that we use to control the processes.  And assembly, to a certain extent, for rockets is not much different from other similar sized products.  It's just the certification and inspection processes that are different.

Quote
You have never mentioned the product field as being ultra-sophisticated, so I am not convinced that the manufacturing model you describe remains valid.

What makes you think rockets are "ultra-sophisticated"?  They are pretty much just up-sized aluminum cans.

As for me, early on I started out in a machine-heavy environment making component parts and small assemblies (as well as tooling too).  Then I moved on to military electronic systems, and later high-volume consumer electronic products.

All of the products I've worked on had high tolerances, either from a fit standpoint or a electronic functionality standpoint.  And especially when you're building high-volume consumer products, everything has to be dialed in and perfect - that takes time and experience with your product.

Boeing has experience in building large assemblies, and building rockets is not a new endeavor.  But dialing in your manufacturing processes takes more than one unit, and anyone in manufacturing engineering would be able to verify that.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: NovaSilisko on 12/16/2015 07:18 am
SLS funded beyond request again?

Quote
Jeff Foust @jeff_foust
Exploration gets $4.03B, including $1.27B for Orion and $2B for SLS, the latter far above the administration’s request.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 12/16/2015 04:42 pm
If it's going to be used to launch a Europa probe in 2022, they need to advance the schedule a bit.  That might explain the extra funding.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 12/16/2015 04:47 pm
If it's going to be used to launch a Europa probe in 2022, they need to advance the schedule a bit.  That might explain the extra funding.
The fact they specifically included a "lander" in the language of a Europa mission, they may need a bit more time anyways. Maybe not. But they also explicitly put in language to fund the EUS and essentially replace ICPS for EM-2.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 12/17/2015 10:10 pm
If it's going to be used to launch a Europa probe in 2022, they need to advance the schedule a bit.  That might explain the extra funding.
The fact they specifically included a "lander" in the language of a Europa mission, they may need a bit more time anyways. Maybe not. But they also explicitly put in language to fund the EUS and essentially replace ICPS for EM-2.

What we could see is the second ICPS being used for the Europa mission in 2022-23 since it will not be flying on EM-2. At that point it would be a flight proven stage and I remember reading somewhere that it does slightly better than the EUS for EC (don't know what happens when you add the lander though).


Edit: I just remembered that they couldn't use ICPS after EUS is online because of the changes to the umbilicals on the ML.

P.S. For my friend Coastal Ron who is always worried about Congress paying for payloads for SLS, here is another one. :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 12/21/2015 02:47 pm
Okay, I'm hoping that I can get some solid information here. As far as I know, so far, the SLS missions are:

EM-1 - Uncrewed trans-Lunar flyby with iCPS - 2018;
SLS-02 - Europa probe launch with EUS or iCPS, depending on the exact schedule of EM-2 - 2022-ish;
EM-2 - ? (AFAIK, the ARM is still baseline although there does seem to be something of a retreat underway) - 2022/23;
SLS-04 (?) - ? (Possible cargo precursor for EM-3) - Undefined;
EM-3 - ? (No mission defined as yet) - Undefined.

IIRC, EM-3's launch vehicle, SLS-05, represents the point where the RS-25D stockpile run out and SLS needs to switch to RS-25E if there are to be further missions in the program. What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 12/21/2015 03:04 pm
EM-1 will be proving many things from the rocket to the spacecraft. That make sense. However at this point we can't be too sure that there will be a payload needing a ride for the EUS test flight and repeating EM-1 with the EUS seems wasteful. I wonder if it would be possible to do enough testing an analysis to skip the uncrewed test flight. The EUS uses a fair amount of heritage components and the RL-10 is a well characterized and reliable engine.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 12/21/2015 09:50 pm
Okay, I'm hoping that I can get some solid information here. As far as I know, so far, the SLS missions are:

EM-1 - Uncrewed trans-Lunar flyby with iCPS - 2018;
SLS-02 - Europa probe launch with EUS or iCPS, depending on the exact schedule of EM-2 - 2022-ish;
EM-2 - ? (AFAIK, the ARM is still baseline although there does seem to be something of a retreat underway) - 2022/23;
SLS-04 (?) - ? (Possible cargo precursor for EM-3) - Undefined;
EM-3 - ? (No mission defined as yet) - Undefined.

IIRC, EM-3's launch vehicle, SLS-05, represents the point where the RS-25D stockpile run out and SLS needs to switch to RS-25E if there are to be further missions in the program. What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?
EM-1 2018 Will fly main engines(ME) ME2045, ME2056, ME2058 and ME2060
SLS-02 2021 Will fly engines ME2047, ME2059 and new unflown engines ME2062(built Sept. 2010) and ME2063(built in early 2015)
EM-2 2023 Will fly engines ME2048, ME2054, ME2057 and ME2061
SLS-04 (?) 2025 Will fly engines ME2044, ME2050, ME2051 and ME2052

 The backup engines for EM-1 are the scheduled primary flight engines for SLS-02, scheduled primary flight engines for a mission, are the previous missions backup engines.  When it comes time to fly SLS-04, as it stands now, there is no backup engines in existence.  Perhaps this should give us a clue as to when these 6 new "legacy" build RS-25 engines that NASA has ordered, will need to be ready to run?  Not only to actually fly SLS's 5th mission, but to support SLS's 4th mission (SLS-04) as standby engines.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 12/21/2015 10:50 pm
Okay, I'm hoping that I can get some solid information here. As far as I know, so far, the SLS missions are:

EM-1 - Uncrewed trans-Lunar flyby with iCPS - 2018;
SLS-02 - Europa probe launch with EUS or iCPS, depending on the exact schedule of EM-2 - 2022-ish;
EM-2 - ? (AFAIK, the ARM is still baseline although there does seem to be something of a retreat underway) - 2022/23;
SLS-04 (?) - ? (Possible cargo precursor for EM-3) - Undefined;
EM-3 - ? (No mission defined as yet) - Undefined.

IIRC, EM-3's launch vehicle, SLS-05, represents the point where the RS-25D stockpile run out and SLS needs to switch to RS-25E if there are to be further missions in the program. What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?

EM-1 mission is planned to enter Lunar DRO via a lunar flyby. This makes a lot of sense as at this stage it looks like most Orion flights will be going to Lunar DRO. The Asteriod will be stationed there a long with DSH.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/07/em-1-nasa-request-changes-debut-slsorion-mission/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/21/2015 11:09 pm
What is the latest time, realistically speaking, when Aeroject/PWR need to start building the tooling for RS-25E in order to avoid serious delays?

That process has already started.

"The lead time is approximately 5 or 6 years to build and certify the first new RS-25 engine, Van Kleek told Universe Today in an interview. Therefore NASA needed to award the contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne now so that its ready when needed."

http://www.universetoday.com/123580/nasa-awards-contract-to-aerojet-rocketdyne-to-restart-rs-25-engine-production-for-sls-mars-rocket/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 12/21/2015 11:24 pm
Coastal Ron, sorrey to ask this so late. In you comment "All of the products I've worked on had high tolerances..." do you mean items with really close tolerances, says much less than 1% tolerances? What I have heard and called 'tight' tolerances. Repairing consumer electronics, some thing have as much as 20% tolerances and other have such tight tolerances that the OEM piece is the only thing that works.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/14/2016 04:14 pm
Some disturbing conclusions.
Discuss

http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/ (http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/14/2016 06:35 pm
This on a follow-on to the KSC info is not good for SLS's schedule. EM-2 could end up out in 2025. After a EUS test flight with another unmanned test of Orion in 2023 to test the ECLSS and other things like the new heat shield.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 01/14/2016 07:00 pm
The full report is available here:
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2015_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf

(Also attached.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/14/2016 08:59 pm
Some disturbing conclusions.
Discuss

http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/ (http://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/)


Schedule pressure? What schedule pressure?!  I haven't seen NASA in a hurry to do anything SLS-related since the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 was signed into law. They have taken their sweet time every step of the way, to the extent of being threatened with a Congressional subpoena over all the delays in starting the program.

All while swearing up and down every single year that they didn't need any additional funding for SLS to meet the legal requirements of the act (IOC, reports, etc).

Mark S.

Edit: And by NASA, I mean the Administration and NASA executive level. Not the guys in the trenches!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 01/23/2016 12:57 am
Quote
An aft skirt similar to one that will be used on a solid rocket booster (SRB) that will help launch NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket into space was transported from the Booster Fabrication Facility to the Rotation, Processing and Surge Facility (RPSF) at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The aft skirt will remain in the RPSF and be readied for simulated stacking operations with a pathfinder, or test version, of a solid rocket booster. February 1 will mark the official start date for booster pathfinder operations after the aft skirt is inspected and undergoes limited processing.

Segments of the pathfinder SRB will arrive from Promontory, Utah, to Kennedy in mid-February and will be transported to the RPSF.

Engineers and technicians with NASA and industry partners will conduct a series of lifts, moves and stacking operations using the aft skirt and pathfinder SRB to simulate how SRB will be processed in the RPSF to prepare for an SLS/Orion mission.

The pathfinder operations will help to test recent upgrades to the RPSF facility as the center prepares for NASA’s Exploration Mission-1, deep-space missions, and the journey to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/28/2016 09:17 am
Regarding the production and flight rate of SLS, which really looks quite low. I tried to figure out why they did this approach.

My only guess so far: They've set up a production line for 1-2 SLS per year to learn how to operate SLS and its production line. After a few flights, they should know about the difficulties of SLS during production, and what might be needed to solve them. At the flight itself, I expect SLS to be pretty much flawless (unless something happens that they did not anticipate). To stress a metaphor that was used a few pages back: learn to bake such a cake before going into bakery scale production.

With the EUS (I think, that will be the only US, that they will use) and a RS-25F (the one after E, where AJ expects it to be much cheaper, since they'd have learned from their production aswell), they could ramp up the production to several unity per year (they might even go up to 10-12, but that would be very high. 5 additional SLS should be doable).

That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient. It should be possible to convert one or two of the older launch pads to a SLS-pad, or set up entirely new pads off shore (the art of making islands with lots of concrete), connected with the crawler-ways, or even become a tenant in boca chica.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/28/2016 12:24 pm
Regarding the production and flight rate of SLS, which really looks quite low. I tried to figure out why they did this approach.

My only guess so far: They've set up a production line for 1-2 SLS per year to learn how to operate SLS and its production line. After a few flights, they should know about the difficulties of SLS during production, and what might be needed to solve them. At the flight itself, I expect SLS to be pretty much flawless (unless something happens that they did not anticipate). To stress a metaphor that was used a few pages back: learn to bake such a cake before going into bakery scale production.

With the EUS (I think, that will be the only US, that they will use) and a RS-25F (the one after E, where AJ expects it to be much cheaper, since they'd have learned from their production aswell), they could ramp up the production to several unity per year (they might even go up to 10-12, but that would be very high. 5 additional SLS should be doable).

That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient. It should be possible to convert one or two of the older launch pads to a SLS-pad, or set up entirely new pads off shore (the art of making islands with lots of concrete), connected with the crawler-ways, or even become a tenant in boca chica.

So you're saying that visionary strategic thinking has established this pace...
One day, we'll see SLS launch every month or two.

Novel.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/28/2016 01:17 pm
So you're saying that visionary strategic thinking has established this pace...
One day, we'll see SLS launch every month or two.

Novel.

At least it is better than thinking that they are a bunch of funny guys who really expect, that it is economically feasable to launch one rocket for 1.5 billion US$ (before adding any payload).

I just provided a possible alternative explanation, which would look a bit better.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 01/28/2016 09:20 pm
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient. It should be possible to convert one or two of the older launch pads to a SLS-pad, or set up entirely new pads off shore (the art of making islands with lots of concrete), connected with the crawler-ways, or even become a tenant in boca chica.
If the cadence starts to pick up NASA would likely just retake possession of 39A once the lease expires.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/28/2016 09:44 pm
First problem, they cannot produce more that 1 a year as set-up. Maybe 2 a year if you increase the workforce. More than 2 a year means more equipment to build more plus more work force. And that is simply building the core. SRBs and engines also cannot support more than maybe 2 a year without greater infrastructure and workforce.

Flip a coin and say the billions to do that happens. If memory serves, they have two mobile transporters. So 39-b should be able to handle 1 flight per month. Probably requires increase workforce for stacking and pad repairs.

So the reason production is set to one a year is money. Some estimates say to produce and launch one SLS is $1.5 billion. So to launch 11 more a year would require another $16.5 billion. I do not see Congress doing that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/28/2016 09:46 pm
Nope.  Only one mobile launch tower, so you can't begin to assemble the next one, till the one on the pad is gone.  Saturn V's could go at about 3 month intervals (3 mobile towers).  Don't know how long these would take to assemble and check out.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/28/2016 10:41 pm
Well, we probably are arguing over nothing but there were and are two crawler transporters, CT-1 and CT-2. I concede only CT-1 is being modified for SLS operations. CT-2 is being upgraded (or finished upgrading) so it could be used in the future but not ready to use now. So you are correct on that as a bottleneck.

The time for preparing the flight could mean one transporter could be used for a once a month cycle. A day to the pad. 2 days for launch. A day back. So three weeks to stack before the next launch. Weather and equipment days would also stress such a wild ass guess of operations tempo.

Now something else that could be a bottleneck, I can't remember had many bays are available in the VAB. They were trying to lease those out as well. But if they are down to one CT, then they only need one bay.

If memory serves, it was also budget that held Saturn V launches to their launch tempo.

So I would still say budget (money) is the constraining factor.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/28/2016 10:43 pm
First problem, they cannot produce more that 1 a year as set-up. Maybe 2 a year if you increase the workforce. More than 2 a year means more equipment to build more plus more work force. And that is simply building the core. SRBs and engines also cannot support more than maybe 2 a year without greater infrastructure and workforce.

Flip a coin and say the billions to do that happens. If memory serves, they have two mobile transporters. So 39-b should be able to handle 1 flight per month. Probably requires increase workforce for stacking and pad repairs.

So the reason production is set to one a year is money. Some estimates say to produce and launch one SLS is $1.5 billion. So to launch 11 more a year would require another $16.5 billion. I do not see Congress doing that.

Okay, interesting.

So it is just not possible to set up a second production line, designed for a higher production rate? Who would have known that this is michouds capacity limit.

Nope.  Only one mobile launch tower, so you can't begin to assemble the next one, till the one on the pad is gone.  Saturn V's could go at about 3 month intervals (3 mobile towers).  Don't know how long these would take to assemble and check out.

What would be required to speed things up? Having more mobile launch towers? Even 6 SLS-launches per year could be quite interesting.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/28/2016 10:54 pm
Regarding the production and flight rate of SLS, which really looks quite low. I tried to figure out why they did this approach.

My only guess so far: They've set up a production line for 1-2 SLS per year to learn how to operate SLS and its production line.

No, it's more simple than that.  There is no defined need yet for the SLS, so no known flight cadence that they have to support.  So they built the SLS factory to something reasonable, which is to support the No-Less-Than once every 12 month safe flight rate cadence.

Quote
After a few flights, they should know about the difficulties of SLS during production, and what might be needed to solve them.

To a degree that's true, in that every production line has to be "dialed in".  But Boeing has a lot of experience in building large flying structures, so the factory is unlikely to change much after they have validated their production processes.  And if it did change, that would be money out of NASA's pocket, which means they would have to find room in their budget for it - meaning production improvements would compete with SLS mission hardware development.

Quote
At the flight itself, I expect SLS to be pretty much flawless (unless something happens that they did not anticipate).

While there is always the chance of something unexpected happening, we as a nation are pretty good at rocket building.

Quote
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient.

As I recall 39B was not going to be a bottleneck until the SLS flight rate gets pretty high (more than one a month?), which if it was needed to be that high then a new launch pad would be the least costly item for NASA to be worried about...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 01/28/2016 11:19 pm

So it is just not possible to set up a second production line, designed for a higher production rate? Who would have known that this is michouds capacity limit.


I am not sure about Michouds capacity. They do have more than one project there at a time. But there may be empty space for more production equipment.

I'm not trying to say it is not possible to physically expand production facilities. The barrier would be funding. You know, 'No Bucks, No Buck Rogers'. The heady days of Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo saw the VAB, the crawler transporters, the launch pads and on and on because there was the political will to spend it on those projects. NASA's budget is approximately 1/3 from the peak of those days (again, if memory serves).

So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/28/2016 11:26 pm
Well, we probably are arguing over nothing but there were and are two crawler transporters, CT-1 and CT-2. I concede only CT-1 is being modified for SLS operations. CT-2 is being upgraded (or finished upgrading) so it could be used in the future but not ready to use now. So you are correct on that as a bottleneck.

The time for preparing the flight could mean one transporter could be used for a once a month cycle. A day to the pad. 2 days for launch. A day back. So three weeks to stack before the next launch. Weather and equipment days would also stress such a wild ass guess of operations tempo.

Now something else that could be a bottleneck, I can't remember had many bays are available in the VAB. They were trying to lease those out as well. But if they are down to one CT, then they only need one bay.

If memory serves, it was also budget that held Saturn V launches to their launch tempo.

So I would still say budget (money) is the constraining factor.

Nearly Nothing.  :)

There are two mobile crawlers, but only 1 mobile launch platform with tower, so as soon as you start to stack one vehicle, you have to launch it to clear the platform for the next launch vehicle.

I think, but am not sure, only 1 bay is going to be used for SLS.  That is not to say that they can't get another one ready.  One bay I think is used to store SRB segments, and the 4th was never finished, if I recall.  Of course, I am probably mistaken.  :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/29/2016 12:13 am

So it is just not possible to set up a second production line, designed for a higher production rate? Who would have known that this is michouds capacity limit.


I am not sure about Michouds capacity. They do have more than one project there at a time. But there may be empty space for more production equipment.

I'm not trying to say it is not possible to physically expand production facilities.

I don't know the potential capacity of Michoud, but capacity for building as many SLS as anyone could possibly want is not the real constraint...

Quote
The barrier would be funding.

Yep.

Quote
So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.

If we ever get to the point where estimates are made public for SLS-sized payloads and missions, I would think we would find that SLS launch costs will not be the most significant missions costs - developing and operating the SLS-sized payloads and missions will far exceed the cost of the SLS launches themselves.  And as of today NASA has yet to fit even one SLS-sized payload or mission into it's current budget profile, so a dozen per year is just fantasy.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 01/29/2016 02:10 am


So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.

Admittedly unlikely - however, we may see incremental budget allocation rises with the nature of the times. Space is interesting to the electorate again.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/29/2016 11:46 am


So, I'm not saying 'impossible'. But, to grow NASA's budget large enough to fund producing 12 SLS stacks a year, fund payloads for those stacks, and funding the launches would be more money that NASA has ever been allocated even in the peak years of Apollo.

Admittedly unlikely - however, we may see incremental budget allocation rises with the nature of the times. Space is interesting to the electorate again.

48 RS-25Es per year...
(Double the amount produced over last couple decades, per year)
64x the planned production rate
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/29/2016 12:41 pm
So you're saying that visionary strategic thinking has established this pace...
One day, we'll see SLS launch every month or two.

Novel.

At least it is better than thinking that they are a bunch of funny guys who really expect, that it is economically feasable to launch one rocket for 1.5 billion US$ (before adding any payload).

I just provided a possible alternative explanation, which would look a bit better.

I suspect both ends of that duality are equally false.
The situation is much more banal, involving political influence, greed, and bureaucracy.

On the other hand, flight rate is exactly the latter -- one per year, optimistically.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 01/29/2016 01:24 pm
I suspect both ends of that dichotomy are equally false.
The situation is much more banal, involving political influence, greed, and bureaucracy.

Yes. You know, it's that "human nature" thing.

Quote
On the other hand, flight rate is exactly the latter -- one per year, optimistically.

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.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 01/29/2016 08:58 pm
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 Bay
The VAB Transfer Isle for SLS core preps
1 VAB Low Bay Cell for EUS preps
1 ML
1 Crawler
1 Launch Pad
1 SRB aft skirt processing facility
1 SRB segment processing facility
1 Orion assembly and check out facility
1 Orion fueling and processing facility
1 Firing Room
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/29/2016 09:15 pm

1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps


It can't  handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads.  Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: muomega0 on 01/29/2016 09:34 pm
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps
It can't  handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads.  Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.
Wasn't SSPF in the 2016 plus up?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/29/2016 09:38 pm
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.

My background is in manufacturing operations, and I have no doubt that all suppliers in the SLS food chain would be able to meet whatever rate is needed.

So don't worry about how many SLS can be produced, instead focus on how many SLS need to be produced - focus on the payloads and missions that can only be lifted by the SLS.  Because it's never been about whether NASA can build an HLV, but whether NASA needs an HLV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/30/2016 12:18 am
There's enough money in the world to fly SLS at a much higher flight rate than it is designed for right now (0.5 to 2 per year). And I'm sure the people pushing hard for SLS are hoping on hope that they will get China to go to Mars or something and get that money (from the US Congress, not China... not directly, at least). Which isn't going to happen any time soon.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hotblack Desiato on 01/30/2016 12:30 am
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.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/30/2016 12:33 am
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.
Right. They essentially are building SLS on the slim hope of a new space race, which I think they'd even acknowledge is a fairly slim possibility.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/30/2016 01:32 am
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 Bay
The VAB Transfer Isle for SLS core preps
1 VAB Low Bay Cell for EUS preps
1 ML
1 Crawler
1 Launch Pad
1 SRB aft skirt processing facility
1 SRB segment processing facility
1 Orion assembly and check out facility
1 Orion fueling and processing facility
1 Firing Room
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps


Thanks for this Scotty.  I appreciate the correction to my thinking.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 01/30/2016 03:31 pm

1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps


It can't  handle encapsulated or hazardous payloads.  Without hazardous processing facility, SLS is limited to Orion.

I said "Cargo Processing and Preps", I said nothing about payload fueling or encapsulation.
There are the AstroTech facilities for that.
They also could do payload encapsulation in the old Shuttle Payload Canister Facility.
But, there is no rush to modify facilities to do so, as there are no SLS Cargo Payloads on the books.
Lots of "maybe" and "might happen", but nothing hard on the books at this time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: OV135 on 02/06/2016 10:39 pm
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?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/06/2016 10:50 pm
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?
Save weight... ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rocx on 02/08/2016 10:41 am
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?
The theory I've read most around here is that there never was a serious intention to paint the core stage white, but that it was shown that way in promotion materials to set it apart from the cancelled Ares V.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/12/2016 02:29 pm
Hmmm.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31740.msg1490778#msg1490778 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31740.msg1490778#msg1490778)

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.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 02/13/2016 03:06 am

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.

The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 02/13/2016 01:22 pm

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.

The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?

There are always numerous, if relatively minor, alterations that occur to any design when metal starts being bent.  Even going from one block version of a vehicle to the next block version generally introduces numerous minor alterations.

That said, it's not like this is unprecedented in NASA rocket programs.  Recall that AS-500F was a full-scale mockup of the Saturn V vehicle, with all of the various connectors, plumbing leads, etc. that the real vehicle would have.  It allowed for the hands-on verification of the pad systems as well as electrical connectivity tests between the GSE and the dummy vehicle.  I don't believe that was wasted money.  However, even with all of those fit checks and procedures training that occurred on AS-500F, it still took three weeks to get through a four-day CDDT on the first actual flight vehicle, AS-501.  So, even with a dummy vehicle, nowhere near all of the learning curve was climbed working with the dummy vehicle.

Similarly, the shuttle Enterprise (an actual flight-configured vehicle in terms of its plumbing and electrical connections) was used for similar pad check-out purposes, with a dummy ET and dummy SRBs, after the A&LT program wound down.  And while that exercise was useful, there was still a lot of learning curve to climb when Columbia finally took its place on the pad to ready for flight.

I guess my point is that dummy vehicles (mockups) have been a part of NASA development for half a century or more.  And that such mockups are actually very useful, even after the design is pretty well frozen, to illustrate small changes still needed to the design (normally to interface positioning).  But they have never been the be-all and end-all of figuring out how everything will fit and work together, both on the pad and in flight.  So, the mockups aren't a waste of time or money, but by the same token they are not, and are never intended to be, completely identical to the real vehicles they are modeled on.

And the mockups are only useful after the final design has been pretty well frozen, but before major flight hardware has been built, so you don't find that, despite the way the specs have been reviewed, the main oxygen inlet fixture is somehow three inches lower and slightly to the right of where the main pad oxygen inlet plumbing has been positioned to connect to it (as a made-up example).  If the fix requires that the oxygen inlet on the rocket needs to be three inches higher up, then that change can be made on the as-yet-unbuilt flight hardware.  It's an awful lot more difficult to react to such situations if you wait until you have your flight hardware all built and find that you need to go back and scrap half of your stages because the inlet connections are all in a bad place.  Your only recourse at that point, really, is to kludge up the fittings in the pad hardware; enough of that and you have a bad, error-prone situation with your launch support systems.

There will always be a final learning curve to climb once you begin to fit together the actual flight stages and connect them to the pad hardware and GSE.  It would be an awfully lot higher curve to climb had they not gone through the mockup exercises, though...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/13/2016 07:19 pm
OK so these simulators are SOP for NASA and would be a normal part of any proposal and schedule for a NASA directed development.

Thanks for the info. Like I said it is useful for the obvious and as you mentioned it is highly useful in discovering when a procedure is in error. Procedures are less sensitive to minor design changes but very sensitive to the order of tasks. many order of tasks problems are not evident until you try to execute the procedures.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 03/02/2016 05:05 pm
I just wanted to put some perspective on the entire SLS program.

We are 18 months from the planned cryo tanking test, and 20 months from the "Green Run Hotfire" test of the entire EM-1 Core Stage on the B-2 test stand at Stennis Space Center.

Image #1-Shows a Saturn S1-C 1st stage being hoisted into the test stand at Stennis SC
Image #2-Shows a S1-C hotfire test in 1967 at Stennis
Image #3-Shows a Saturn-V S1-C 1st stage leaving Stennis bound for KSC for stacking and launching.  Just imagine in early 2018, the EM-1 core stage will be making a similar voyage on the Pegasus barge.
Image #4-Shows a SLS core stage installed in the B-2 test stand for the hotfiring of 4 RS-25 engines

We are about to enter the 2nd quarter of 2016. Projects SLS and Orion are all coming together.  I can hardly wait to see, hear and FEEL 4 RS-25s light off followed shortly thereafter by 2 of the largest rocket engines in the world.  This is really happening, and launch day is rapidly approaching. 

Good work, and good luck to all those involved!


(of course all scheduling is subject to change)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/03/2016 02:51 am
...as much as I point out SLS is a complete waste of money, I /will/ still be trying to attend the first launch because it will be quite spectacular. :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 03/04/2016 10:01 pm
The SLS/Orion mission to visit the asteroid in orbit around the moon is looking like it is going to be delayed and possibly cancelled.

It is already being delayed to "study".

http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/10/2016 08:19 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/11/2016 08:35 pm

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.

The SLS core design is basically locked in now. Why would it change?

Has anyone here examined the possibility of an SLS first stage powered by AR-1 or BE-4 engines?  :)

Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much, and it would drop the first stage cost by, oh...$200-250M, at a WAG.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/11/2016 09:55 pm

Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...

Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. We're talking about a rocket that'd be as different as SLS is from Aries V. There's a reason why Vulcan is massively different to merely a "re-engined Atlas V" as some community elements conceived it would be. Structure, tanking, tolerances, thermodynamics, stresses, aerodynamics, everything changes, mass, acceleration on ascent,  staging time, everything changes, everything must be recalculated, resimulated, reengineered, retested. You'd end up spending way more money than you'd save in infrastructure changes alone.

If SLS was re-engined, it'd die.

Boosters are a little bit different, but still a major element.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/11/2016 10:06 pm
The SLS/Orion mission to visit the asteroid in orbit around the moon is looking like it is going to be delayed and possibly cancelled.

It is already being delayed to "study".

http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/

They should put a small Habitat Module out there to test radiation mitigation, life support systems and other tech. The crew could dock with it and do a "This is what going to Mars is going to feel like".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/12/2016 08:00 am
Not only would changing engines be technically difficult at this stage, as The Amazing Catstronaut says, but using the BE-4 would be politically difficult, as it would seriously hurt one of the major inhabitants of the Shuttle ecosystem, namely Aerojet Rocketdyne.

It might be interesting to wonder, though, where things might have gone had the AR-1 been on the drawing board circa 2011, when the RAC teams were doing their studies.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 03/12/2016 11:00 am
The SLS/Orion mission to visit the asteroid in orbit around the moon is looking like it is going to be delayed and possibly cancelled.

It is already being delayed to "study".

http://spacenews.com/nasa-slips-schedule-of-asteroid-redirect-mission/

I've been expecing at least some discussion here about the elephant in the room that the "delay" represents, but am surprised/not surprised it hasn't started yet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/12/2016 04:50 pm

Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...

Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
Precisely.  If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed.  It would mean bringing back J-2X.  It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 03/12/2016 04:59 pm

Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...

Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
Precisely.  If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed.  It would mean bringing back J-2X.  It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.

 - Ed Kyle

Yeah -- if you're going to change to kerolox or metholox in the SLS first stage, you might just as well pull out the old plans and start building Saturn V's again...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/12/2016 07:50 pm
I've been expecing at least some discussion here about the elephant in the room that the "delay" represents, but am surprised/not surprised it hasn't started yet.

That's because it wasn't a surprise, it was expected.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/13/2016 01:50 am
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows.  My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I.  Then I thought about it.  Hm.  NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly.  Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade".  I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.


Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...

Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
Precisely.  If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed.  It would mean bringing back J-2X.  It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

You have more faith than I do that the best answer, a decade ago or any other time, was to design a hydrolox first stage with solid boosters and Shuttle engines.  Besides, the AR-1 didn't exist back then.  Today, Congress is every bit as bent on bringing the AR-1 into existence as they were the J-2X and SLS. Whether, given the chance, AJR wouldn't choose a long-term commitment for AR-1 is an interesting question.

Beyond that, all of this was relitigated after 2010, and stayed fuzzy into well into 2012, after which it still creaked along before and after PDR in mid-2013.  Quite frankly, I'd give it roughly six months to get back to PDR on a new kerolox first stage, using the work that's been done already.  The rest of the vehicle is clearly-parameterized.  Many other choices wouldn't be need to be made over again, saving more time before a first CDR.

Regarding your assertion that the new first stage would be lower-performance, the tank mass and fuel density difference along with the relatively low difference (~50 seconds) in sea level Isp generally makes kerolox come out slightly better for first stages, which I'm pretty sure you know very well.

I think an AR-1 first stage is worth putzing around with.  I'm not seriously proposing any of this could ever come about, ever ever ever, but stranger things have happened.  After all, the Senate designed a rocket...

*edit - And then, there's the AR-1/SLS common booster core...  :D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/13/2016 02:09 am
Not only would changing engines be technically difficult at this stage, as The Amazing Catstronaut says, but using the BE-4 would be politically difficult, as it would seriously hurt one of the major inhabitants of the Shuttle ecosystem, namely Aerojet Rocketdyne.

Given the SLS's sole purpose of supporting that ecosystem, the BE-4 is an even less likely design choice, I admit.

Quote
It might be interesting to wonder, though, where things might have gone had the AR-1 been on the drawing board circa 2011, when the RAC teams were doing their studies.

Yep.  Or where things might have gone had an AR-1 been funded over a decade back instead of the J-2X.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 03/13/2016 02:13 am
...as much as I point out SLS is a complete waste of money, I /will/ still be trying to attend the first launch because it will be quite spectacular. :)

While we disagree on whether SLS is a waste or not I share your desire to see the first launch. Hopefully job situation will allow (If I can land a teaching job after graduation I will make it a field trip!). We definitely need to have an NSF group get together to see the launch (and the first manned CST-100 and Dragon launches).

They should put a small Habitat Module out there to test radiation mitigation, life support systems and other tech. The crew could dock with it and do a "This is what going to Mars is going to feel like".

That would be the best thing to do for EM-3 in my view. NASA already has Congressional authorization and funds to start working on a habitat module. There would be plenty of time to get it ready and we would get a foothold in cislunar space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/13/2016 03:26 am
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows.  My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I.  Then I thought about it.  Hm.  NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly.  Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade".  I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.

{snip}

The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 03/13/2016 05:26 am
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows.  My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I.  Then I thought about it.  Hm.  NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly.  Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade".  I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.

{snip}

The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 03/13/2016 01:29 pm
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows.  My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I.  Then I thought about it.  Hm.  NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly.  Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade".  I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.

{snip}

The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.

You are correct.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-defends-restart-rs-25-production/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/13/2016 03:17 pm

Regarding your assertion that the new first stage would be lower-performance, the tank mass and fuel density difference along with the relatively low difference (~50 seconds) in sea level Isp generally makes kerolox come out slightly better for first stages, which I'm pretty sure you know very well.
I think you know pretty well that the SLS core stage is not a "first stage".  It is a long-burning sustainer stage serving the same purpose as the Orbiter/ET combination.  It provides high specific impulse above all else, much higher than only "~50 seconds" since most of its action time is in vacuum where its advantage over a hydrocarbon engine is in excess of 120 seconds ISP.  It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.

If you replace this high-performing core stage with a hydrocarbon stage, you are going to have to make up the delta-v shortfall with a bigger, more expensive LOX/LH2 upper stage which will require higher thrust than RL10 and the like can provide.  All of the studies showed that result.  The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/13/2016 03:30 pm
The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.
Actually, the only application.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 03/13/2016 06:32 pm
The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.
Actually, the only application.

Unless a hydrocarbon core stage replaces the entire SLS, of course.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/13/2016 08:04 pm
None of these options is under the slightest consideration. Join L2 for the definitive status of SLS. The elephant mastodon in the room is indeed a hydrocarbon fueled 15m diameter monster which will be affordable due to leaner manufacturing processes, the lack of government involvement, and most of all, reusability.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 03/13/2016 08:08 pm
I will certainly believe it when I certainly see it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/13/2016 08:26 pm
Do not forget SLS is a political beast. Congress can change their minds as to what they want. As in a 200+mt launcher for Mars not just a 100mt maybe a 130mt launcher. Such as liquid boosters, 5 engine RS-68A core, J-2X second stage and a RL-10 EDS. Plus use something else (commercial LV) to get Orion into LEO where it docks with the rest of the Mars stack. Constellation resurrected.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/13/2016 09:06 pm
First of all, I think it's (over)stating the obvious to say that changing SLS engines at this point would create a few raised eyebrows.  My first take was that it would cause the biggest agency crisis since Apollo I.  Then I thought about it.  Hm.  NASA got away with "redesigning" the J-2 as the J-2X, and the Senate got away with designing a heavy lift rocket that NASA can't afford to fly.  Possibly a switch to the AR-1 might be billed as an "engine upgrade".  I'm laughing ruefully as I write this, and remembering more examples where the truth as been, ahem, finessed.

{snip}

The first few engines are literally the Space Shuttle engines. These will soon run out. After that NASA will have to buy newly manufactured engines either more of the same design or a new design. A new design of engine would have to have a bigger payload, be more efficient, available sooner or cheaper.
I thought NASA awarded Aerojet Rocketdyne a contract back in November to modernize the RS-25 and restart production.

That is a factual argument not a political argument.

Although it is why NASA went that way.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 03/13/2016 10:46 pm
Sure they can moot many things, some that might even get study financing. Longer term depends on many things, and they can be reversed at times too.

The SLS that appears to not be paper might do missions. The capability to do missions in less than an decade will fight with the paper design to get out of the box that must take more decades - govt related work often takes a lot longer.

Depending on outside of government "deals" might sound "quicker", but these are always subject to changing political trades that may never resolve.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 03/13/2016 11:39 pm
None of these options is under the slightest consideration. Join L2 for the definitive status of SLS. The elephant mastodon in the room is indeed a hydrocarbon fueled 15m diameter monster which will be affordable due to leaner manufacturing processes, the lack of government involvement, and most of all, reusability.
...and only needing to be 2 stages. Vs 2 boosters, 1 core, and an upper stage. And the 2nd stage of the mastadon would also be your lander/ascender, which is honestly just as important as the launch vehicle.

...anyway, there was definitely a small cadre of people pushing for a return to a big kerolox core, but they lost out to the Shuttle-derived folk.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 03/14/2016 12:40 am

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 03/14/2016 09:59 am

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.

So NASA faked their own cost estimates? SLS is a good TLI launcher and it was considered cheaper in development than the alternatives. Back in 2010.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 03/14/2016 01:14 pm
It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/14/2016 02:20 pm

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
"Black Zones"?  That had nothing to do with SLS.  Michael Griffin?  He was gone before SLS was defined. 

A series of studies, including the substantial "Requirements Analyses Cycle", were performed during 2010-2011, months after President Obama sent Griffin packing.  Saturn V-like RP/LOX first stages were considered, but the development costs were an issue.  ORSC and J-2X would have been required.  SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost.  NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.  It never would have been able to fund a full-up new propulsion development effort. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 03/14/2016 02:38 pm

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.
"Black Zones"?  That had nothing to do with SLS.  Michael Griffin?  He was gone before SLS was defined. 

A series of studies, including the substantial "Requirements Analyses Cycle", were performed during 2010-2011, months after President Obama sent Griffin packing.  Saturn V-like RP/LOX first stages were considered, but the development costs were an issue.  ORSC and J-2X would have been required.  SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost.  NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.  It never would have been able to fund a full-up new propulsion development effort. 

 - Ed Kyle

Good points. I was not thinking about the RAC studies, I thought you were referencing ESAS, etc., when you stated that this issue was studied to death a decade ago, which I took to mean that you are stating that any doubts about the superiority of SDLV solutions vs. non-SDLV for NASA's manned BEO program was basically put to bed long ago.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: EE Scott on 03/14/2016 02:40 pm

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.

So NASA faked their own cost estimates? SLS is a good TLI launcher and it was considered cheaper in development than the alternatives. Back in 2010.



No I don't mean to imply that, sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't thinking specifically of SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/14/2016 02:43 pm
It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?
At SRB sep, STS T/W was probably 0.91-0.93 or thereabouts, so generally speaking the design was for a nearly 1:1 ratio at staging.  T/W went positive within 15-20 seconds and of course remained positive for the subsequent ~355 seconds of the SSME burn.  I'm not sure about SLS at the moment, but I would expect it to also be ballpark 1:1.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/14/2016 03:35 pm
It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?

If you were doing a perfectly vertical shot toward GSO or escape, that ratio would cause gravity losses which are greater than acceleration. The thing is, the W part of that T/W is a function of gravity times mass. When you factor your velocity into separate vectors according to your trajectory, some of the V is vertical climb and some of it is downrange velocity. The downrange velocity is canceling out part of the gravitational pull. Sitting on the ground, mass and weight are equal. Once you are in a semi-orbital trajectory, the weight is less than the mass, so what seems to be < 1:1 ratio actually is not.

Think about STS. At main tank separation, there is not enough velocity for orbit. The tank reenters and burns up. The thrust of the two OMS engines is technically far less than 1:1 T/W if you are considering the mass of the vehicle to also be the weight of the vehicle. However, because the vehicle is almost in orbit, the forward velocity is cancelling out almost all of the pull of gravity (and remember, weight is a function of mass times gravity). So though the mass is still pretty much the same, the weight is now much lower. The low thrust OMS engines are quite adequate to increase the velocity to orbital velocity.

The same thing is true after SRB separation. The downrange velocity is cancelling part of the effect of gravity, so the weight is actually lower than the mass and the T/W is greater than 1.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/14/2016 03:43 pm

...snip...

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

This is not a helpful description. The "best answer" was pushed into view by folks who in my opinion appeared highly politically biased. Does the idea of black zones or perhaps the name Michael Griffin not bring back any memories of those days? If I am remembering that time inaccurately, please let me know.

So NASA faked their own cost estimates? SLS is a good TLI launcher and it was considered cheaper in development than the alternatives. Back in 2010.



No I don't mean to imply that, sorry if it came off that way. I wasn't thinking specifically of SLS.
In order to understand the "best" of the study, you must also investigate what were the assumptions made for the  evaluation models. These assumptions can create their own set of biases funneling you to a specific design as best when it is not. SpaceX is obviously using a different set of assumptions in their models to determine "best" that result in the BFR/MCT configuration. Each different set of assumptions result in a different "best".

SLS was a separate beast in that the two main "best" concerns controlling its design was development costs and schedule. Actually schedule may have been the more important item of the two. A $15B development cost (the SLS will not be operational until EM-2, $1.5B/yr for 10 years) I would not consider an inexpensive development.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 03/14/2016 04:16 pm

Switching wouldn't change the timeframe that much...

Sure would - the first stage engines are one of the most pivotal, complex elements of the whole LV. You switch those out and you have to change the whole design, especially when you're talking different fuel types. ...
Precisely.  If SLS went to a lower-performing hydrocarbon core first stage, a heavier, higher thrust second stage would be needed.  It would mean bringing back J-2X.  It would also mean development of a smaller in-space third stage.

These questions were all studied to death a decade ago.  Multiple studies of innumerable alternative designs.  The best answer nearly every time looked pretty much like the rocket now being built.

 - Ed Kyle

Not quite sure I agree with you here Ed (which is rare, I usually do).

If you mean a decade ago during the ESAS study, I think there were much better options considered (and some not considered) , and then passed up on in favor of basically what's being built now in LV 27.3 (not, exactly, but pretty similar)

By the time we were at CxP's cancellation about 5 years ago, then I think you are correct, what they are building now is probably about the best configuration, given politics, that could be expected.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 03/14/2016 04:22 pm

In order to understand the "best" of the study, you must also investigate what were the assumptions made for the  evaluation models. These assumptions can create their own set of biases funneling you to a specific design as best when it is not. SpaceX is obviously using a different set of assumptions in their models to determine "best" that result in the BFR/MCT configuration. Each different set of assumptions result in a different "best".


Good point. 

I think a lot of the appearance of a "thumb on the scale" of the result of the ESAS study was based on many assumptions by NASA that seemed to be perhaps somewhat unreasonable.   In order to force LV13.1 and 27.3 as the winners, where seemingly there were better options passed up.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/14/2016 07:32 pm

Regarding your assertion that the new first stage would be lower-performance, the tank mass and fuel density difference along with the relatively low difference (~50 seconds) in sea level Isp generally makes kerolox come out slightly better for first stages, which I'm pretty sure you know very well.
I think you know pretty well that the SLS core stage is not a "first stage".  It is a long-burning sustainer stage serving the same purpose as the Orbiter/ET combination.  It provides high specific impulse above all else, much higher than only "~50 seconds" since most of its action time is in vacuum where its advantage over a hydrocarbon engine is in excess of 120 seconds ISP.  It only needs enough thrust to keep positive T/W after the SRBs stop thrusting.

If you replace this high-performing core stage with a hydrocarbon stage, you are going to have to make up the delta-v shortfall with a bigger, more expensive LOX/LH2 upper stage which will require higher thrust than RL10 and the like can provide.  All of the studies showed that result.  The proper application of a hydrocarbon engine would be as part of an SRB replacement.

 - Ed Kyle

I'm trying to avoid blowing an evening with my calculator in an attempt to verify something which only matters as an intellectual exercise.  :)  I did, unfortunately, blow an hour already trying to find decent numbers for the various SLS components, along with an ascent profile, before giving up.

Anyway, without a side booster configuration, I think you'd be very obviously right.  But with a side booster configuration, my intuition is that an ORSC core could be configured in such a way that there would be no delta vee shortfall for the EUS to make up.  I think such an "upgrade" would be faster and easier if the boosters were liquid, and I suspect that with something like a 7xORSC common core for both boosters and center the end result would be quite capable and minimally disruptive.

That's all guesswork.  I'm having fun playing hookey, but I don't dare take a day off to figure out whether it's all impossible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/14/2016 07:44 pm
SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost.  NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.  It never would have been able to fund a full-up new propulsion development effort. 

My whole point is that it's interesting to contemplate the new possibilities.  Essentially, the lack of any decent hydrocarbon engine a few short years ago has completely changed through the grace of a billionaire and some politicians.  Where the AR-1 is concerned, Congress has essentially reached into the Air Force budget to create something which currently has no useful purpose.  Voila, a relatively cheap (putatively $12.5M) ORSC engine!  What can be done with it?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Prettz on 03/14/2016 07:59 pm
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/14/2016 08:32 pm
SLS won in part because the propulsion existed, or nearly existed, minimizing development cost.

It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the SLS would use what is being used today, since the law Congress wrote pretty much said that NASA must, per Sec. 304 (a) (1), to the extent practicable, use:

"(B) Space Shuttle-derived components and Ares 1 components that use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank- related capability, and solid rocket motor engines; and (2) associated testing facilities, either in being or under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act."

Plus the quick need dates:

"Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016."

And I'm sure we all recall the many in the space community that wondered why NASA was "dragging it's feet" taking so long to define the SLS.  NASA tried to make it look like they had a choice on the design, but Congress didn't give them enough room to really have any choice.

Quote
NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.

The cost of development is not the real issue.  The cost of using an HLV every year, for decades, is the real question.  And no one knows the answer to that...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/15/2016 04:22 am

Quote
NASA can hardly afford SLS as it is.

The cost of development is not the real issue.  The cost of using an HLV every year, for decades, is the real question.  And no one knows the answer to that...

Bah. The folks from Hawthorne will make that moot one way or another soon. Either with the soom to debut HLV lite or the Mastodon SHLV to be announced in September. Either the HLV lite or the SHLV will likely to have at least half a dozen flights per year once in service.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/15/2016 04:55 am
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?

For Block IB, its just under 1g at SRB separation. Actual acceleration is 9.5 m/s².
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/15/2016 05:15 am
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?

Congress has determined that the AR-1 shall exist, ye, verily.

That's not to rule out a future such decree on behalf of the F-1B, which I think would have given me more joy, as arbitrary declarations go. Perhaps when SpaceX and/or Blue get around to fielding a really great big rocket, Congress will hold hearings on why the USA doesn't have one yet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 03/15/2016 02:07 pm
This may be a pretty minor nitpick. The Shuttle had a T/W lower than 1:1 at SRB separation. Isn't the same true of SLS?

For Block IB, its just under 1g at SRB separation. Actual acceleration is 9.5 m/s².
Thanks. The minute after I posted that I was wondering if there would be a difference because of the lighter ICPS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 03/15/2016 02:37 pm
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?

Congress has determined that the AR-1 shall exist, ye, verily.

That's not to rule out a future such decree on behalf of the F-1B, which I think would have given me more joy, as arbitrary declarations go. Perhaps when SpaceX and/or Blue get around to fielding a really great big rocket, Congress will hold hearings on why the USA doesn't have one yet.

USA will have two (or three, if VulcanHeavy is built, too) -- Congress will have to decide whether to follow their own law, or change it to keep their pet project(s) relevant.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0
-- Robotbeat's signature line

NOTE: The USG is not the USA.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Carl G on 03/15/2016 04:02 pm
Let's try and keep the politics out of this thread. In fact, let's do more than try, let's not.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/15/2016 04:44 pm
For Block IB, its just under 1g at SRB separation. Actual acceleration is 9.5 m/s².

Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS?  I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/15/2016 04:46 pm
What was so wrong with using the F-1B?

Congress has determined that the AR-1 shall exist, ye, verily.

That's not to rule out a future such decree on behalf of the F-1B, which I think would have given me more joy, as arbitrary declarations go. Perhaps when SpaceX and/or Blue get around to fielding a really great big rocket, Congress will hold hearings on why the USA doesn't have one yet.

USA will have two (or three, if VulcanHeavy is built, too) -- Congress will have to decide whether to follow their own law, or change it to keep their pet project(s) relevant.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0
-- Robotbeat's signature line

NOTE: The USG is not the USA.

I was attempting to be sardonic.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 03/15/2016 07:07 pm
Do not forget SLS is a political beast. Congress can change their minds as to what they want. As in a 200+mt launcher for Mars not just a 100mt maybe a 130mt launcher. Such as liquid boosters, 5 engine RS-68A core, J-2X second stage and a RL-10 EDS. Plus use something else (commercial LV) to get Orion into LEO where it docks with the rest of the Mars stack. Constellation resurrected.

They sure can, but it won't stay that way if it takes forever.  Sending SLS skyward is taking the best side of forever anyway, due to all the little nuances which need to be worked out before the twenty twenties (or 2018 for all of us in ESA funding nations/s). A changed congress may not be sympathetic to SLS either. Sure, they want a jobs program, but they also want to look competent and that they're at least attempting to use government funds efficiently.

Constellation architectures are not a paragon of efficiency, cost saving or even mission capability. There's better alternatives that can be done with either a leaner, skimpier architecture, or by going more massive and less. Either option contains higher prospective dollar value than Constellation.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/16/2016 03:07 am
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS?  I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.

Its relatively easy, but each simulation takes me half a day to perform. I use my own custom coded Pascal software. Its not a spreadsheet. I have already simulated liquid boosters with three AJ1E6 dual nozzle engines. I could use that to simulate six AR-1 engines.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/16/2016 04:03 pm
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS?  I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.

Its relatively easy, but each simulation takes me half a day to perform. I use my own custom coded Pascal software. Its not a spreadsheet. I have already simulated liquid boosters with three AJ1E6 dual nozzle engines. I could use that to simulate six AR-1 engines.

I could be mistaken, but I think he means AR-1 on the core, not AR-1 boosters.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: daveklingler on 03/18/2016 01:22 am
Steven, are you set up to easily simulate an AR-1-based SLS?  I'm assuming you've long since set up a spreadsheet, since you've done several simulations at this point.

Its relatively easy, but each simulation takes me half a day to perform. I use my own custom coded Pascal software. Its not a spreadsheet. I have already simulated liquid boosters with three AJ1E6 dual nozzle engines. I could use that to simulate six AR-1 engines.

I could be mistaken, but I think he means AR-1 on the core, not AR-1 boosters.

I did mean the core, but I recognize that the boosters have a slightly better chance of seeing AR-1s than the core does.  It sounds like you're saying that the code you already wrote is applicable to either one?

I just found your 2013 SLS/F1B/AJ1E6 paper and reread it.  It seems like you might be able to take AJR at their word and basically plug in RD-180s, since they have said emphatically that they are doing their best to duplicate the RD-180 in every significant way.  I don't think they can come in much less or much above the RD-180's thrust level, nor can the Isp vary much, which means identical chamber size and pressure, bell dimensions, etc. Somewhere I did see something to the effect that every significant physical aspect of the RD-180 has been copied.

So in other words, you might be able to use an RD-180 in simulations.  Not sure whether that helps.  :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/18/2016 05:41 am
I did mean the core, but I recognize that the boosters have a slightly better chance of seeing AR-1s than the core does.  It sounds like you're saying that the code you already wrote is applicable to either one?

OK, I misunderstood and thought you were thinking of the boosters. I could also use AR-1's on the core, although this might require a bit more changing of the code.

Quote
I just found your 2013 SLS/F1B/AJ1E6 paper and reread it.  It seems like you might be able to take AJR at their word and basically plug in RD-180s, since they have said emphatically that they are doing their best to duplicate the RD-180 in every significant way.  I don't think they can come in much less or much above the RD-180's thrust level, nor can the Isp vary much, which means identical chamber size and pressure, bell dimensions, etc. Somewhere I did see something to the effect that every significant physical aspect of the RD-180 has been copied.

So in other words, you might be able to use an RD-180 in simulations.  Not sure whether that helps.  :)

I already have estimates of the performance of the AJ1E6, which I would use for the AR-1. I think that would be better than using the RD-180 as a reference.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/18/2016 02:47 pm
Changing the core to Kerolox would mean it is an entirely new rocket. The tanks have to be resized for the vastly different fuel/oxidizer volumetric ratio.

Though I first suggested it as fantasy, I think something much easier than this would be to replace RS-25 with J-2X, strengthen the core with strong-backs, and place it on top of BFR (S1 of MCT). What was the SLS core becomes the most powerful ever US atop the most powerful ever S1.

You get a stupendous initial boost from a reusable S1. Your SLS based US is air startable with an engine that has been fully developed and paid for. No longer needed are RS-25E, advanced boosters, or EUS. The SLS core could likely handle the remainder of ΔV to Earth orbit, TLI, LOI, and finish as a crasher stage for a robust Lunar lander.

I know it won't fit in the VAB, but it would mean NASA could simply lease S1 service from SpaceX, eliminate development of the three components listed above, begin developing other needed systems, and perhaps focus primarily on Luna while SpaceX focuses primarily on Mars.

Some have stated it would be better to build a Metholox US whose diameter matches the S1. The thing is, SpaceX is not planning that, but the BFS instead. This would be a way to leverage what is already in design by both entities. NASA is building the SLS core, but can't afford to do much else at the present time. SpaceX is in the middle of designing Raptor and MCT. Under this scheme, NASA would simple lease S1 launch service on BFR that is headed toward development. NASA could do relatively modest changes to SLS, forget advanced boosters, RS-25E, and EUS, and turn its attention to a lander. Mars is explored by SpaceX with some help from NASA and Luna is explored by NASA with some help from SpaceX.

Steven, if you have any interest in running calculations on this monster, I would be greatly interested in the results.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/18/2016 03:29 pm
...
Though I first suggested it as fantasy, I think something much easier than this would be to replace RS-25 with J-2X, strengthen the core with strong-backs, and place it on top of BFR (S1 of MCT). What was the SLS core becomes the most powerful ever US atop the most powerful ever S1.

You get a stupendous initial boost from a reusable S1. Your SLS based US is air startable with an engine that has been fully developed and paid for. No longer needed are RS-25E, advanced boosters, or EUS. The SLS core could likely handle the remainder of ΔV to Earth orbit, TLI, LOI, and finish as a crasher stage for a robust Lunar lander.

I know it won't fit in the VAB, but it would mean NASA could simply lease S1 service from SpaceX, eliminate development of the three components listed above, begin developing other needed systems, and perhaps focus primarily on Luna while SpaceX focuses primarily on Mars.

Some have stated it would be better to build a Metholox US whose diameter matches the S1. The thing is, SpaceX is not planning that, but the BFS instead. This would be a way to leverage what is already in design by both entities. NASA is building the SLS core, but can't afford to do much else at the present time. SpaceX is in the middle of designing Raptor and MCT. Under this scheme, NASA would simple lease S1 launch service on BFR that is headed toward development. NASA could do relatively modest changes to SLS, forget advanced boosters, RS-25E, and EUS, and turn its attention to a lander. Mars is explored by SpaceX with some help from NASA and Luna is explored by NASA with some help from SpaceX.
....

No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/18/2016 03:35 pm
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.

That would require extra refueling launches. This approach also acknowledges the realpolitik of keeping pork flowing to particular states/districts and satisfying high ranking congresspersons.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 03/18/2016 03:50 pm
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.

That would require extra refueling launches. This approach also acknowledges the realpolitik of keeping pork flowing to particular states/districts and satisfying high ranking congresspersons.

Might be a bit of misunderstanding. The SX upper stage devised lander will go on top of your fantasy stack. So the lander's prop tanks should be fully filled for Lunar descend from LLO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 03/18/2016 04:46 pm
No need. Adopt the the rumored SX Raptor powered reusable upper stage as a lander. Just stick a HAB or cargo module on top of the upper stage.

That would require extra refueling launches. This approach also acknowledges the realpolitik of keeping pork flowing to particular states/districts and satisfying high ranking congresspersons.

Might be a bit of misunderstanding. The SX upper stage devised lander will go on top of your fantasy stack. So the lander's prop tanks should be fully filled for Lunar descend from LLO.

Tom,
I know this configuration has piqued your interest.  But I think cross pollinating these two would be much more difficult and expensive than either just sticking with SLS as is, or just switching to use MCT outright and buying launch services from SpaceX and cancelling SLS and Orion. 

(I think the latter will likely be what happens eventually anyway, but if it happened sooner, it could mean MCT is ready to fly sooner too.)

I just think that modifying the core to accommodate having a booster under pushing rather than above it pulling probably would be about as extensive as switching it to kerolox or whatever, by the time it's all said and done.  Especially with government and government contractors.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/18/2016 06:04 pm
I just think that modifying the core to accommodate having a booster under pushing rather than above it pulling probably would be about as extensive as switching it to kerolox or whatever, by the time it's all said and done.

My friend Lobo!

I remember the time when you proposed ganging three F9s with strongbacks and sticking a cluster on each side of SLS to act as the boosters. That's actually where I got the idea that I stated above of just strengthening the sides of the core with strongbacks only, no actual modifications of the walls. If clustering a trio of F9s on each side with strongbacks is possible, then it seems a strongback alone for structural reinforcement should also be possible.

I'm trying to think of the cheapest way to preserve certain congressmen's pork interests and yet still make it possible for NASA to do something with what otherwise is a boondoggle.

...just switching to use MCT outright and buying launch services from SpaceX and cancelling SLS and Orion....will likely be what happens eventually anyway, but if it happened sooner, it could mean MCT is ready to fly sooner too.)

This is what I expect will indeed happen. OTOH, those particular congresspersons have proven remarkably able to keep this pork line flowing. Though far from ideal, this preserves the pork currently in place, but perhaps could allow NASA to actually cook that pig and serve some food.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/18/2016 06:04 pm
Might be a bit of misunderstanding. The SX upper stage devised lander will go on top of your fantasy stack. So the lander's prop tanks should be fully filled for Lunar descend from LLO.


Ahhh, thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 03/18/2016 06:57 pm
I just think that modifying the core to accommodate having a booster under pushing rather than above it pulling probably would be about as extensive as switching it to kerolox or whatever, by the time it's all said and done.

My friend Lobo!

I remember the time when you proposed ganging three F9s with strongbacks and sticking a cluster on each side of SLS to act as the boosters. That's actually where I got the idea that I stated above of just strengthening the sides of the core with strongbacks only, no actual modifications of the walls. If clustering a trio of F9s on each side with strongbacks is possible, then it seems a strongback alone for structural reinforcement should also be possible.

I'm trying to think of the cheapest way to preserve certain congressmen's pork interests and yet still make it possible for NASA to do something with what otherwise is a boondoggle.

Ahhh...my youthful idealism back then.  ;-)

I probably could work to design strongbacks that way.  I guess when I proposed it for three F9 cores, it was before there really was much known about MCT, that that could be a rival HLV alternative.  And it was a reach for way to try to make an off the shelf liquid booster work with the type of SLS core they were developing.

Adapting it to fit on top a serial booster just seems like it's another reach beyond my reach.  :-)
But I am certainly flattered my reach could be inspiration.  Heh.

In addition to the load carrying strongbacks themselves...which probably wouldn't be too hard, there'd be adapting different air-lit engines to the MPS instead of RS-25's, then all the interfaces to stack the two.  (We've seen the issues with adapting the ICPS to SLS and then moving to the EUS.  So I think we'd see something like that play out getting an SLS core on there, but then later getting the PoR upper stage on there in the BFS.)

And then there's the height of this monster, and that LH2 will need to be brought to wherever it launches from (not to mention getting the SLS cores itself to wherever that is, if someplace other than LC-39.)

Not that it's not an interesting idea.  I just think by the time you are done you could be into it for more money than just sticking with SLS as is (to satisfy the pork considerations).
Like choosing to remodel a house.  If you aren't careful, you can be into it for most...or all...of the price of just going and buying a different house with the layout you preferred.
It could be easier to cancel SLS and have NASA pay SpaceX for an expendable Raptor powered upper stage first, while they are developing the actual BFS.  That upper stage can have all the same interfaces and sizes and such that BFS will, so that nothing new is needed for when BFS will sit on the booster.  It probably wouldn't have great BLEO capability for it's size, but since the stage would be expendable, it'd be a lot lighter than the BFS, so it might be adequate for NASA's purposes?  And more "conservative" than SpaceX's fully reusable plans with LEO refueling.  It becomes a really big F9R then.

It wouldn't be as politically popular as stocking with SLS because the contracts would run out with Boeing and ATK, but I think it may be more feasible than trying to put SLS on BFR. 

...just switching to use MCT outright and buying launch services from SpaceX and cancelling SLS and Orion....will likely be what happens eventually anyway, but if it happened sooner, it could mean MCT is ready to fly sooner too.)

This is what I expect will indeed happen. OTOH, those particular congresspersons have proven remarkably able to keep this pork line flowing. Though far from ideal, this preserves the pork currently in place, but perhaps could allow NASA to actually cook that pig and serve some food.

Yup....we never know...I think once a rival is flying, and with Elon promoting the heck out of it and offering attractive pricing...I think it'll be hard to deny any more like it is when it's just a paper rocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 03/19/2016 04:29 am
Steven, if you have any interest in running calculations on this monster, I would be greatly interested in the results.

No interest at the moment. If it ever gets near to happening, I would do a simulation.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: turbopumpfeedback2 on 03/28/2016 01:56 pm
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?

SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.

Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.

But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.

This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?

By this trend, next generation rocket system with the same mass as shuttle will be launched once a decade.



Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2016 02:25 pm
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?

SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.

Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.

But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.

This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?


The SLS lacks payloads.

BTW, the shuttle flight rate was much higher in the 90's when it had payloads other than the ISS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 03/28/2016 03:59 pm
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?

SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.

Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.

But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.

This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?


The SLS lacks payloads.

BTW, the shuttle flight rate was much higher in the 90's when it had payloads other than the ISS.

Yes, lack of payloads.

Congress is more than happy to pay for the development of SLS and Orion, but they don't seem willing to actually do anything with them other than a couple of test flights and maybe the Europa mission. Unless there is more money coming soon, and I doubt that, expect SLS to be cancelled by the mid twenties.

If the program was funded, NASA wants a minimum of one flight per year and SLS production could handle two flights per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 03/28/2016 07:01 pm
I love this, from a ABC News item about the auditor's report on the SLS launch control software being behind schedule and over budget:

Quote
The software won't be ready until fall 2017, instead of this summer as planned, and important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred.

Yes, let's defer the safety features.  What could possibly go wrong?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/29/2016 12:49 am
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?

SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.

Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.

But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.

This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?

By this trend, next generation rocket system with the same mass as shuttle will be launched once a decade.


The other big difference is that the Space Shuttles were reusable vehicles where as the SLS are expendable vehicles. This may makes a big cost difference. The 6 Space Shuttles (including Enterprise) were repaired and used again. Each SLS will be used once and thrown away.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RocketGoBoom on 04/22/2016 04:13 pm
SLS and Orion are crowding out other areas of the NASA budget.

http://spacenews.com/senate-bill-cuts-other-nasa-programs-to-fund-sls-and-orion/

Quote
The bill provides $19.306 billion for NASA, an increase of more than $280 million from the administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 released in February. However, NASA’s exploration account, which includes SLS and Orion, is increased by nearly $1 billion from the request.

That increase includes about $840 million for the SLS, to $2.15 billion, and $180 million for Orion, to $1.3 billion. Exploration ground systems to support SLS and Orion also see a $55 million increase, although research and development activities are cut by more than $80 million.

The increase in exploration funding means that most other major NASA accounts suffered cuts from the administration’s request in the bill. Science, aeronautics, space technology and space operations were cut by a combined $660 million from the request. The aeronautics account suffered the largest cut on a percentage basis, seeing its request for $790 million cut by nearly 25 percent.

Within the $5.4 billion provided to science, $200 million less than the request, planetary science suffered the largest cut, of more than $160 million. The bill and report did not specify a funding level for a mission to Europa, although it did state it “remains supportive” of such a mission. The bulk of the support for a Europa mission, and the enhanced funding it has received in recent years, has come from the House.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 04/22/2016 05:23 pm
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing.  :o
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 04/22/2016 07:09 pm
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing.  :o

My thinking entirely. Has it escaped their notice that a launcher has to actually have something to launch in the first place.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/22/2016 07:52 pm
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing.  :o

My thinking entirely. Has it escaped their notice that a launcher has to actually have something to launch in the first place.

Rationality and Congressional Critters? ::) The Critters is fine with the current setup, since the R&D dollars goes to certain Congressional districts. Getting something operational don't matter to them, otherwise several SLS payload should be bending metal already.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/22/2016 08:50 pm
Well if the ATK/Orbital EELV rocket is developed using SLS solid components, strap on solids used for Vulcan, this should cut some manufacturing costs for the SLS.  How much we don't know.  Keeping assembly line work going is better than starting and stopping constantly. 

I think the original Ares I  & V concepts were fine using off the shelf parts.  All the money spent on 5 segment booster development, J2X development, etc went nowhere and built nothing.  All that money could have been spent developing the SSME as a air start engine, the only real development needed.  Then the existing 4 segment boosters would have been fine.  It would have been a lot cheaper.  Then after their development and getting into service, develop the composite boosters for improved performance.  It has been what 10-12 years and still no big rocket?  The EELV and reusable markets have made great strides in the same length of time.  Still water over the dam. 

When is SLS supposed to fly?  By the time it does Vulcan, Falcon Heavy, maybe even a metholox upper stage for Falcon Heavy, and a new EELV solid, and maybe even BO's New Sheppard reusable vehicle could be flying, all combined with in orbit refueling and evolved SEP propulsion would make SLS obsolete as far as overall costs to operate. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/27/2016 09:41 pm
Who knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome.
"If"?  It already is being built.

 - Ed Kyle

A bill is not paid until the cheque has cleared.

Block 0 SLS is in a race with Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy. Definitely an "If" until Block 1A with its very heavy payload flies.
They are building Block 1 right now.  (Block 0 was an undeveloped concept.)  It will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy. 

Block 1B is the next SLS, with the EUS upper stage that has been designed.  NASA has already ordered engines for that new upper stage and it looks like Block 1B will take over after only one or two Block 1 flights.  Block 1B is probably going to be able to boost 4 times more to escape than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and 10 times more than an all-recoverable Heavy.

Vulcan Heavy is a concept that is not currently planned to be developed.  Vulcan-ACES will be powerful enough to do the EELV Heavy missions currently done by Delta 4 Heavy, but ACES is a few years down the road.  It will roughly match Falcon Heavy performance beyond LEO.

 - Ed Kyle 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 04/28/2016 01:56 am
The six year old in me wonders if I can lick the giant beaters...

I've been in that room. I think if you tried you'd see a lot of folks hitting the floor real quick! (Kidding - all mixing operations are controlled remotely from a bunker...)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 04/28/2016 04:16 pm
Block 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.

And the actually pertinent questions are:
On what timeline?
At what price per kg?
Why are you so conveniently leaving out MCT?

I was an SLS believer at one time too............But then I'm far more of a realist than I am a believer.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/28/2016 05:01 pm
Block 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.

And the actually pertinent questions are:
On what timeline?
At what price per kg?
Why are you so conveniently leaving out MCT?

I was an SLS believer at one time too............But then I'm far more of a realist than I am a believer.
NASA is working to a constrained budget on SLS and Orion, so whatever that is determines the "price".  The schedule is published.  Orion is the time constraint, not SLS.  MCT is a concept. SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.

Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: CNYMike on 04/28/2016 05:49 pm
Who knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome.
"If"?  It already is being built.

 - Ed Kyle

Let me rephrase: the next administration could cancel it, then it's anybody's guess what comes next.  Trump is the wild card; who knows what he'll do?  Ten seconds of pandering to MSFC people isn't enough. 

Yes, it is being built.  Yes, it can fly.  Then again, NASA could be terminated and US space privatized completely.  We won't know until next year. 

FYI, I don't want the current manned programs canceled because we'd go through the same kind of mess that got us here in the first place.  But you can't count on whoever takes the white house to make that much sense.  And I'm not ruling Trump out until the first Wednesday in November. 

Hope that clears things up.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/28/2016 08:59 pm
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.

The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.

The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history.  And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.

Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 04/29/2016 08:57 am
I think that the posters above are correct to emphasise that the question is 'should', not 'could'. Don't get me wrong, I'm a BFR fan-boy. I love these huge creatures. However, there is no point building The Rocket That Ate NASA if it never serves any significant purpose in the space program. I'd feel a lot more confident about SLS and its future if the following criteria were met:

1) Flight rate > 2/year;

2) Waiting list of payloads or fully-described, funded and in development missions that require its unique capabilities;

3) Any payload at all (i.e. human-ready Orion) that is expected to fly in < 5 years.

Right now, EM-1 is giving me uncomfortable Ares-I-X flashbacks.

You see... SpaceX are talking about a program of Red Dragon missions, mostly intended to gather data on and then prove all-propulsive Martian landings... starting NET 2018. When the first Dragon has pads down and is relaying data back from the Martian surface, things are going to get a lot more interesting on the Space, Science and Competitiveness Subcommittee, especially if the Gentleman from Texas is nursing a bruised ego and wants to prove himself again.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/29/2016 04:45 pm
NASA could give a grant to a university professor to write a study showing how SLS could be used to build a lunar village. It does not matter if the SLS takes the habitats to lunar orbit or delivers say the rovers to a SEP tug waiting in LEO.

Providing the self funding holds out ULA and Masten should have the ability to land payloads of 5-10 tonnes on the Moon within 5 years. See Lunar_CATALYST. In about 15 years they plan to land 25 tonne payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 04/29/2016 05:14 pm
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.

The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.

The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history.  And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.

Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...

Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun. If we are going to use calendars as arbitrary technical limitations, why not the Mars year - 687 days? I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/29/2016 05:47 pm
Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun.

When there are a lot of unknowns, you have to try to make assumptions.  From an NSF article (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2014/02/sls-launch-rate-repetitive-cadence-gerstenmaier/):

"Although payloads are yet to be announced, Mr. Gerstenmaier confirmed the flight rate has to be once a year as a minimum requirement, in response to a question from Bejmuk – who had assumed SLS would only launch once every two or three years.

Mr. Gerstenmaier noted that “repetitive cadence is necessary” as the reason SLS will launch every year.
"

However it would be a whole host of reasons that they have used to distill down to an assumption of once per year, meaning any one of those assumptions could change - either for better or worse.  But you wouldn't know if it was for the worst unless you experienced a failure of some sort, which is a condition that NASA would rather not have.

Quote
I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.

And no doubt it could be that NASA could launch the SLS every 5 years and it would not explode.  But the cost of that one flight every 5 years would likely be enormous, for many reasons.

So it really does come down to cost - what is the overall cost associated with running a unique transportation system?  And what would be the cost to not have it?

Those are the questions that have not fully been asked and answered, but will have to be soon since the SLS manifest is virtually empty prior to it becoming operational...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 04/29/2016 06:34 pm
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.

The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.

The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history.  And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.

Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...

Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun. If we are going to use calendars as arbitrary technical limitations, why not the Mars year - 687 days? I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.
The gap between Apollo 7 and Skylab 2 was even greater, 4 years 7 months and 14 days. Similarly the Delta II has some pretty big gaps in its recent launch history. The gap between Delta flight 357 and 367 is 2 years 8 months and 4 days. There is an almost 2 year gap between the last Delta II flight and the next one.

I can understand the desire to keep a regular launch cadence so the program's personnel have regular practice. However at least looking at these two rockets the gaps do not appear to present significant reliability issues. The professionals who work in this industry appear to be capable of reliably launching at any cadence. Accordingly I don't think the issue of launch cadence as it relates to reliability should be a factor the decision to continue or cancel the program. There are many pros and cons to the SLS program that are way more important than this hypothetical concern.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/29/2016 07:35 pm
Where do you get SLS getting 2.5 times the LEO payload vs FH?  FH expendable, like SLS will be, is supposed to get 53 tons to LEO.  I thought SLS is or was to be between 95-105 tons to LEO in current configuration.  Spun wound composite boosters might get it to 115-120, but from what I understand, not 130.  For greater than 130 tons, wouldn't they have to add a 5th engine on the core and a larger upper stage say with J2x?  Now that Falcon has full thrust in their rocket, this will change the boosters LEO ability.  The Raptor upper stage engine is supposed to be developed in the next 18-24 months.  This may greatly increase FH's payload.  SLS is certainly not 2.5 times the proposed FH. 

Someone several years ago suggested the 40-60 ton payload range, using EELV's in heavy versions, in space docking, assembly, and refueling, would be all we needed have a viable moon or Mars program.  Also, with several vendors, no real downtime if one of the competitors had a failure.  No need for billions spent on SLS or $/kg cost. 

We seem to have vendors who leach off the government with constant delays and cost overruns.   
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/29/2016 07:54 pm
Where do you get SLS getting 2.5 times the LEO payload vs FH? 

Mr. Kyle was referring to escape velocity payload, not payload to LEO.

Edited to add:

Right now, EM-1 is giving me uncomfortable Ares-I-X flashbacks.

I am feeling some of that too but there are several differences between EM-1 and Ares I-X

1. EM-1 is a flight of a completely operational rocket. The core stage, boosters, and upper stage are all ready to go, as well as the LAS. Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.

2. EM-1 has a payload/mission. EM-1 will launch an unmanned Orion around the moon. Ares I-X had a dummy Orion that never made it to LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 04/29/2016 08:45 pm
Where do you get SLS getting 2.5 times the LEO payload vs FH? 

Mr. Kyle was referring to escape velocity payload, not payload to LEO.

And Spacenut clearly mentioned:

The Raptor upper stage engine is supposed to be developed in the next 18-24 months

I surely imagine the Raptor US will fly on a FH long before EUS flies on an SLS Block IB. With FH now based on Falcon 9 v1.1FT, if cross feed were employed on a fully disposable FH with Raptor US, I highly doubt Block IB would get 2.5 x the payload to GTO or escape. And if you think of Block I (with iCPS) coming online about the same time as such a FH, the comparison is much closer...................until you look at the dollar signs attached to each.

I think MCT (at least the BFR booster) may fly before SLS Block IB ever does. In fact, I think a single Block I will fly. I now believe Blocks IB and IIB will never see the sky.

Jim used to predict that SLS would not succeed. He also was skeptical about SpaceX' Mars ambitions. I now believe he was right about the first one, not because of the reasons he enumerated, but rather because he underestimated the second one. Though it might have eventually fallen of its own problems, I think Super-FH and MCT will hasten the demise of SLS by years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/29/2016 08:49 pm
The gap between Apollo 7 and Skylab 2 was even greater, 4 years 7 months and 14 days. Similarly the Delta II has some pretty big gaps in its recent launch history. The gap between Delta flight 357 and 367 is 2 years 8 months and 4 days. There is an almost 2 year gap between the last Delta II flight and the next one.

Apollo had already proven out their launch operations, and so mothballing them for a few years was OK to do, and back then salaries for their ground crew would probably not have been much of a budgetary problem.

Plus you can't look at the vehicle launch rate per se, since it is all facets of the rocket - production, launch operations, etc.  So for Delta II ULA was using the same factory personnel that were already trained, the same manufacturing support systems, the same launch ops personnel, etc.

For the SLS it's a combination of running the SLS at the very slow production rate of one per year, and only launching once per year.  Only doing something in the factory, or only doing something on the launch pad once per year does not promote good learning and retention.  And the currently forecasted launch rate means the SLS won't exit the "learning curve" for something like a decade.

Quote
Accordingly I don't think the issue of launch cadence as it relates to reliability should be a factor the decision to continue or cancel the program.

It is a significant factor that needs to be part of the decision, since it automatically removes any suggestion that the SLS could fly less often than once per year safely.  That pretty much mandates that unless Congress funds enough payloads and missions to fill up a yearly flight manifest that NASA won't feel the transportation is safe enough to use.  You have to draw the line somewhere to avoid "safety creep".

Quote
There are many pros and cons to the SLS program that are way more important than this hypothetical concern.

None that seem to include the phrase "We have more than enough SLS-only payloads funded and on track for launch to keep the SLS busy flying at least once per year for many years to come".  Which is main reason there is anything to debate about the SLS in the first place...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/29/2016 08:59 pm
And Spacenut clearly mentioned:

The Raptor upper stage engine is supposed to be developed in the next 18-24 months

I surely imagine the Raptor US will fly on a FH long before EUS flies on an SLS Block IB. With FH now based on Falcon 9 v1.1FT, if cross feed were employed on a fully disposable FH with Raptor US, I highly doubt Block IB would get 2.5 x the payload to GTO or escape.


Ed was using the numbers we have currently for both SLS Block I/IB and Falcon Heavy. There are still many questions and unknowns on what the Raptor upper stage will actually be used for or what size engine it will be (mini or full scale) let alone payload performance numbers. I think he was justified in using the numbers we currently have vs. hypotheticals with plenty of unknowns.

Quote
I think MCT (at least the BFR booster) may fly before SLS Block IB ever does. In fact, I think a single Block I will fly. I now believe Blocks IB and IIB will never see the sky.

We will see. Given how much trouble and hard work SpaceX has had to do to get Falcon Heavy off the ground I doubt BFR will be flying until at least 2025.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 04/29/2016 11:14 pm
Given how much trouble and hard work SpaceX has had to do to get Falcon Heavy off the ground I doubt BFR will be flying until at least 2025.

You're working off of incorrect presuppositions. SpaceX has been smart enough to finish their refinements of F9 before proceeding to FH. Had they gone ahead with FH, then decided to refine F9, and then FH, they would be like the F-35 program: building production models prior to finishing with the test models. That's not working so well. Putting FH on hold while refining F9, mastering RTLS and at sea landing, then proceeding with FH has been a strategically shrewd, intentional, and practical move. It brings a much more robust as well as cost effective LV. There has been nothing troublesome or problematic about it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 04/29/2016 11:47 pm
Someone figured several years ago, that if they stayed with the 4 seg solids and 5 SSME's and a good upper stage, they could have flown 4-5 times a year for $1 billion.  Now one time for $1 billion.  To me it is sad. 

You are right about SpaceX.  They got Falcon 9 going by launching satellites from paying customers, Then upgraded the engines, then stretched the first stage, then attempted landing, then went full thrust.  Now a Raptor based upper stage for more capacity. 

IF again big IF, we had gone ahead with the 4 segment boosters and 3 SSME's we could have had the "Direct" booster already and be actually doing something in space.  Then we could have upgraded the boosters to either 5 segments or to the composite boosters, then added one or two more engines, stretched the core, and added J2X upper stage.  This could have been done over time.  Seems like they have over-engineered the SLS with all the changes.  Instead of getting started a few years ago, they had to wait for the new boosters, wait for the expendable SSME, develop the J2X and then cancel it.  Even Orion capsule seems to have taken forever to develop.  I don't know, it just seems like a huge waste of money instead of using what we already had off the shelf, then make upgrades. 

This is not the first time the Federal government has wasted money.  Just like the F-35, trying to make it a jack of all trades, but a master of none.  Seems like everything the Senate and House get involved in something, it becomes very expensive and seems to create more problems than it solves, especially when it is technical. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/30/2016 01:37 am

You're working off of incorrect presuppositions. SpaceX has been smart enough to finish their refinements of F9 before proceeding to FH. .....Putting FH on hold while refining F9, mastering RTLS and at sea landing, then proceeding with FH has been a strategically shrewd, intentional, and practical move. There has been nothing troublesome or problematic about it.

I am not saying what they did was wrong. I think they did a great job and their iterative technique has worked wonderfully. What I am saying is that bigger projects have more issues and take more effort. Elon himself has said that Falcon Heavy was a much trickier proposition. I am sure if you asked any SpaceX engineer they would tell you that development of FH wasn't a breeze and they ran into troubles and problems that they fixed in the end. That is the case with any rocket development program.

BFR/BFS will be an order of magnitude more difficult. I am not saying they can't do it, just that it is not going to come out as soon as some people believe. It may be even longer if they plan to develop BFS alongside it.

SLS will have more than one flight as long as it isn't canned in the next admin. Even when BFR is flying SLS would still have a couple more flights given that it is crew rated (assuming BFS isn't ready yet).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/30/2016 02:52 am
I doubt SLS/Orion 2017 appropriations will be threatened by this current news event. But add a successful test flight of FH, its publication of capabilities and prices and the 2018 appropriations may be in severe jeopardy. Also add to that a new administration a new congress makeup and it could be in really serious trouble. That's even if the media doesn't label it the "Rocket to Nowhere".  If that happens the congressmen will be ducking for cover and all political support for SLS/Orion will evaporate and funding for it would never even make it out of committee.

Hopefully some very useful payload projects that congress has started to fund, DSH for one, won't get axed with it. DSH does not care who launches it. It still has the same usefulness and the directions that NASA is going with the program is more in the direction taken with CRS and CC by looking for a development partner vs doing it all themselves. But the program is still just in its definition phase and not in its detailed design phase.

There are also other programs, the dual vehicle planetary probe launch being explored for launch using SLS, hopefully will not get damaged by a cancellation of SLS as well. When a LV that is being planned on by payloads disappears then addition funds are required to manifest to another LV if one is available at all!!!!

I look at the SLS/Orion program and see a train-wreck for NASA coming that is not avoidable. It is just a matter of when not if and how many other programs will be harmed when the wreck occurs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 04/30/2016 03:06 am
There is a space policy forum, but this isn't it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 04/30/2016 05:20 am
.... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.

No, it was worse than that. The Ares-1X first stage was not operational either. It was a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a dummy fifth segment bolted on top to make it look like a 5-segment RSRMV. The fifth segment was weighted down with ballast to simulate the mass of a real fifth segment. Which of course made the booster so heavy that the steel motor casing bent when it parachuted into the ocean.

Cheers!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 04/30/2016 01:42 pm
.... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.

No, it was worse than that. The Ares-1X first stage was not operational either. It was a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a dummy fifth segment bolted on top to make it look like a 5-segment RSRMV. The fifth segment was weighted down with ballast to simulate the mass of a real fifth segment. Which of course made the booster so heavy that the steel motor casing bent when it parachuted into the ocean.

Cheers!

 ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/30/2016 03:55 pm
.... Ares I-X had only the first stage operational, the upper stage and LAS were dummies.

No, it was worse than that. The Ares-1X first stage was not operational either. It was a standard four-segment Shuttle SRB with a dummy fifth segment bolted on top to make it look like a 5-segment RSRMV. The fifth segment was weighted down with ballast to simulate the mass of a real fifth segment. Which of course made the booster so heavy that the steel motor casing bent when it parachuted into the ocean.

Cheers!

Minor nit: what also contributed to the bent casing was the fact that two of the three main parachutes failed before splash-down. The first one failed outright (ripped apart) upon deployment. The second one deployed more-or-less normal but partially ripped apart a few seconds later. The end result was that the Ares I-X booster impacted the water with a higher velocity than anticipated.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/02/2016 03:29 am
Someone figured several years ago, that if they stayed with the 4 seg solids and 5 SSME's and a good upper stage, they could have flown 4-5 times a year for $1 billion.

Whoever said that was clearly not rooted in reality.

Based on actual contracts for the Shuttle program when it was still in volume production, a flight set of SRB's (not including the SRM components) cost $68M.  For the External Tank (ET), which is smaller and less complex than the SLS 1st stage, it cost $173M each.  That's a total of $241M just for those two elements.

The SLS is far larger and more complex for the expendable hardware than the Shuttle was, plus the maximum capable production rate at this point in time is less than two per year, which doesn't really provide for cost reductions based on volume production at suppliers.  No one outside of NASA knows what the actual SLS cost will be, but I'd say it will be significant.

Quote
Now one time for $1 billion.  To me it is sad. 

Cost can only be evaluated when compared to the value one gets in return, and what the alternatives are in comparison.  There are many things U.S. Taxpayers pay more than $1B for and we feel it's worthwhile.  Will the SLS fall in that category?  Time will tell...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: chrisking0997 on 05/02/2016 04:28 pm
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/02/2016 05:41 pm
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?
For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)

Currently there is Orion and DSH (DSH only recently in FY2016 started receiving any funding). With Europa investigating SLS suitability. It is both a problem of NASA putting forth more candidates and congress funding them. NASA doesn't want to put a new program in front of congress if they know it has almost no chance of getting funded. They wait for funding chance to increase before trying to get it funded. Look at what has happened to ARM.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/02/2016 06:27 pm
I think BFR would be easier than Falcon Heavy, or heavy of any rocket.  It is a single core rocket, more or less only a sized up Falcon 9 with different engines.  Engines are the hardest to develop it seems.  SLS could have been a 9 engine RD-180 with the 8m core without solids.  It could have lifted far more than SLS and there could have been a twin engine J2X upper or 3 engine upper.  That would have lifted what a Saturn V lifted.  Then add Atlas V strap on's for additional boost.  I think that would have been cheaper than the current SLS. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/02/2016 06:44 pm
I think BFR would be easier than Falcon Heavy, or heavy of any rocket.

Much as I love discussing alternatives, for this specific thread it doesn't matter that there may or may not be alternatives to using the SLS, it only matters whether Congress will fund the continuous use of the SLS via funding payloads and programs that can only use the unique services of the SLS.

And that is because the SLS is a government-owned transportation system that has unique capabilities, so as long as Congress funds things for it to move to space it will have a use - regardless what the possible alternatives are.

Which is why it doesn't really matter how much money is being spent on the SLS, or whether it's "on schedule".  What will decide the fate of the SLS is whether it's really needed to fly no-less-than once per year, and that clock starts in 2022 when it's supposed to become operational.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/02/2016 07:14 pm
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?
For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)

Currently there is Orion and DSH (DSH only recently in FY2016 started receiving any funding). With Europa investigating SLS suitability. It is both a problem of NASA putting forth more candidates and congress funding them. NASA doesn't want to put a new program in front of congress if they know it has almost no chance of getting funded. They wait for funding chance to increase before trying to get it funded. Look at what has happened to ARM.

It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS. That is about as firm of a payload as you can get. I don't even think that Orion and DSH are required legally to be launched on SLS and so those are comparatively less firm.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/02/2016 08:05 pm

It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS. That is about as firm of a payload as you can get. I don't even think that Orion and DSH are required legally to be launched on SLS and so those are comparatively less firm.

Orion is a questionable spacecraft design. I don't see much use for it unless it has some dedicated BEO missions on SLS. The first should be used as an enabler for the latter if Congress wants to be smart about it and draw SLS out.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/03/2016 01:03 am
maybe Im confused on the whole payload funding thing, but what SLS payloads has NASA proposed that Congress has not funded?
For info on SLS payloads (manifest plans) or lack thereof see this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39300.0)

Currently there is Orion and DSH (DSH only recently in FY2016 started receiving any funding). With Europa investigating SLS suitability. It is both a problem of NASA putting forth more candidates and congress funding them. NASA doesn't want to put a new program in front of congress if they know it has almost no chance of getting funded. They wait for funding chance to increase before trying to get it funded. Look at what has happened to ARM.

It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS. ...
Then you might want to explain that to the mission designers who still baseline an EELV...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/03/2016 02:48 am
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS.

Can you cite the bill that requires that, please? I know there were a lot of people hyping it, but I just don't remember any legislation to that effect. If I missed that, I would like to read what it says. Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/03/2016 02:59 am
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Thorny on 05/03/2016 03:35 am
It is now law that the Europa mission will use SLS.

Can you cite the bill that requires that, please? I know there were a lot of people hyping it, but I just don't remember any legislation to that effect. If I missed that, I would like to read what it says. Thanks.

https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ113/PLAW-114publ113.pdf

Public Law 114-113, December 18, 2015
Consolidated Appropriations Act 2016

"Provided further, That, of the amounts provided, $175,000,000 is for an orbiter with a lander to meet the science goals for the Jupiter Europa mission as outlined in the most recent planetary science decadal survey: Provided further, That the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall use the Space Launch System as the launch vehicle for the Jupiter Europa mission, plan for a launch no later than 2022, and include in the fiscal year 2017 budget the 5-year funding profile necessary to achieve these goals."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/03/2016 07:39 pm
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.

ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS.  I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.

Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit.  It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/04/2016 10:40 am
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.

ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS.  I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.

Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit.  It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.
Future units will be ordered from ESA within the bounds of yet another barter agreement. That barter agreement has been in-work for some time now, but the uncertainty over anything beyond EM-2 is making it hard to reach a hard agreement.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/12/2016 04:32 pm
If I am correct, NASA was not to long ago (less than a year) saying that they had a 6 month schedule margin. But now they are saying they have a 2 month schedule margin. That would imply that historically critical path schedule has changed dramatically in the last year.

Having worked on managing critical path schedule analysis and tracking for a very complex and almost daily changing schedule on the Shuttle VAFB pad work back in the mid 80s using scheduling analysis software (at that time very advanced, and now very common). The software showed what tasks were at risk for schedule slips and what tasks were not critical. But the list of critical tasks and non-critical tasks changed weekly due to dependencies on tasks that snarled to a near stop (work site accidents, mostly on hardware damage not personnel injuries). These were not a normally estimate effect on schedule.

Such an event would be analogous to the vertical welding machine problems.

If they are eating 4 months of margin for every 12 months of work and there is 30 months to go that 2 months of margin may well disappear with a slip occurring pushing the launch date out 6 months or more into as late as Mid 2019. Unfortunately as you get closer to launch more items become critical path and less items can be ignored (from a schedule standpoint). Hopefully there is actually more margin built into the individual tasks and that margin is not being shown in the work to date of Sept. This would be done by reevaluating all the tasks and adjusting their schedule estimates since the analysis as reported a year ago. Basically the remaining tasks would be more accurately estimated than they were a year ago.

But knowing what I do about schedule management of such very complex highly interdependent tasks, the new info on schedule does not give me a warm a fuzzy feeling on them meeting the Nov 2018 launch date.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/12/2016 04:59 pm
@OldAtlas_Eguy:  If they are eating 4 months of margin for every 12 months of work and there is 30 months to go that 2 months of margin may well disappear with a slip occurring pushing the launch date out 6 months or more into as late as Mid 2019.

I won't be surprised if it gets pushed back to 2020...

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DaveS on 05/12/2016 05:03 pm
The 6 month margin in the schedule got eaten up by the problems they discovered in the new Vertical Weld Center at MAF. It took a number of months to rectify the VWC problems. So, it isn't a generic SLS flaw or anything that made a number of months disappear, it was a manufacturing hardware fault.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/12/2016 05:21 pm
The 6 month margin in the schedule got eaten up by the problems they discovered in the new Vertical Weld Center at MAF. It took a number of months to rectify the VWC problems. So, it isn't a generic SLS flaw or anything that made a number of months disappear, it was a manufacturing hardware fault.
The key here is that such events happen quite often in a complex long duration engineering project, hence my reference to my experience with the Shuttle VAFB pad build work. It does not take much to create a major slip from an unexpected event even on a non-critical path item. As I mentioned earlier what is on the critical path changes weekly if not daily. That 2 month schedule margin is for handling such events. Lets hope they do not have any other events as severe as the welding machine.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/12/2016 10:00 pm
If I am correct, NASA was not to long ago (less than a year) saying that they had a 6 month schedule margin. But now they are saying they have a 2 month schedule margin. That would imply that historically critical path schedule has changed dramatically in the last year.
I wouldn't read it being that's how much margin they have, but rather that's how much margin they are confident enough to exploit at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Retired Downrange on 05/13/2016 03:43 am
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/senator-cuts-nasas-tech-budge/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/13/2016 04:07 am


http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/05/senator-cuts-nasas-tech-budge/

Ugh.  Why did you make me read that?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/13/2016 04:29 am
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.

ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS.  I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.

Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit.  It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.

So, essentially what seems to be happening is that part of the ISS budget is being diverted to Orion, right?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/13/2016 04:50 am
For Orion missions will ESA be providing service module for free?. I assume that buys them one or two seats.

ESA was contributing the Service Module as part of their contribution to the ISS.  I'm not sure if that includes guaranteed crew participation on a future mission, but my guess would be it does not.

Also ESA is only designing the Service Module, building a complete unit for flight, and providing NASA the parts for a second unit.  It will be up to NASA to finish the assembly of the second unit, and to build future units.

So, essentially what seems to be happening is that part of the ISS budget is being diverted to Orion, right?

That would appear to be the case, since ESA is doing Orion work to pay for their part of the ISS instead of doing things that contribute to scientific output on the ISS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/13/2016 04:52 am
Sounds like a huge waste of money. NASA should've just built it themselves in the first place. Of course, we knew that from the beginning.

It's just a move designed to maintain political support for Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/13/2016 09:06 am
Sounds like a huge waste of money. NASA should've just built it themselves in the first place. Of course, we knew that from the beginning.

It's just a move designed to maintain political support for Orion.

How much cash is going to get misdirected on "maintenance"?

Oh well. #JourneyToMars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/13/2016 09:09 am
It's not much we didn't already know, although it's good to see it getting some mainstream publicity.

[TiredOldOpinions]SLS isn't intrinsically bad, it's just intrinsically purposeless. [/TiredOldOpinions]
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/13/2016 09:38 am
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(

But if Mars truly did enter the budgetary and political realms of possibility; the SLS with a decent flight rate and coupled with wonderfully enabling and leveraging technologies like SEP, ISRU and Propellant Depots could give mankind the Solar System. Or... We could just wait until Elon and other Commercial Superheroes get round to getting to Mars more cheaply and in their own time. It wont happen overnight; but it will happen.

Leave Mars to Space X and their ilk - build an International Lunar Outpost at the Lunar South Pole. NASA (U.S.A.) provides the Heavy Lift with SLS Block II(ish) and the Orion 'Mothership' and perhaps an ESA/JAXA/Commercial consortium builds the Manned Lunar Lander that also has a close 'stablemate' for cargo; as Soyuz has the Progress.

But you could still do the Lunar Outpost with lesser launchers than SLS if SLS gets canned - Vulcan/ACES, Falcon Heavy, Ariane 6 and the H-IIB could all contribute with distributed launch salvos per launch windows. It can be done - smarter folk than me have written books and papers on this stuff, you know...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/13/2016 12:55 pm
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(


Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is.  SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.

However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/13/2016 01:07 pm
I'm a baby boomer and I don't recall a non-tumultuous year since I was born... This is normal, they either get on with it or they don't... Just sayin' ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 05/13/2016 05:11 pm
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(


Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is.  SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.

However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
Mars Vs Moon is a political decision and not one based on capabilities yet. We are on a Journey To Mars because that is what administration is saying. That could switch tomorrow to the Moon and NASA would be in a good position to accomplish that goal with the current roster of programs and capabilities. At this point along The Journey To Mars we haven't arrived at the point where the road to Mars splits from the road to the Moon. SLS, Orion, DSH, SEP are just as useful for a lunar program as a Mars program (if not more so). The down select to a destination can still be done a few years form now without too much trouble. Its only when things like surface habitats, and landers need to be developed that one place or another has to be chosen. In this context SLS's ambiguity of destination and mission is a feature not a defect.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/13/2016 05:39 pm
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure. Also; 'trickle' funding has resulted in a virtual three-step development: Block 1, Block 1B and Block II. I feel that if they were going to be throwing away all this massive hardware each time (we call that expendable, eh?) then they should be shooting for the best and most powerful version from the word GO. Lifting 130, 140 or even 150 tons to LEO per launch would go a long way to justifying such a large expendable. I also believe Mars is, sadly, an unfunded Powerpoint fantasy at this point :(


Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is.  SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.

However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
Mars Vs Moon is a political decision and not one based on capabilities yet. We are on a Journey To Mars because that is what administration is saying. That could switch tomorrow to the Moon and NASA would be in a good position to accomplish that goal with the current roster of programs and capabilities. At this point along The Journey To Mars we haven't arrived at the point where the road to Mars splits from the road to the Moon. SLS, Orion, DSH, SEP are just as useful for a lunar program as a Mars program (if not more so). The down select to a destination can still be done a few years form now without too much trouble. Its only when things like surface habitats, and landers need to be developed that one place or another has to be chosen. In this context SLS's ambiguity of destination and mission is a feature not a defect.

I agree with you, and I believe that it's where SLS will end up going if its not superseded by commercial competition within the first 5-10 years of life. I'm someone who is of the opinion that Mars and Lunar will happen roughly around the same timeframe as each other - but they'll be handled differently with different players (initially) going to each. The moon isn't needed to go to mars, but a lot of what you need to go to mars will help you establish sustained (and that's the key word here) operations around the moon. If SpaceX doesn't die or massively change its ideological bent, they will be going to Mars at some point. Good for them - SLS can go to the moon, L1, L2, near earth asteroids, you name it. SpaceX's mars plans are comparatively razor sharp. NASA's mars goals are redirectable, and that's pivotal. I'm fairly certain that NASA top brass are conscious of this hence the emphasis on habitats and enabling technologies. If SLS and Orion get off the ground, they should be used in the sphere that they're suited for.

As for distributed launch - I'd use distributed launch for most supplies to a lunar outpost/space station. Use SLS for launching major, monolithic elements (and use Orion for crew rotation since you've built it). Make the costs possible by using distributed launch for everything else. Everyone's happy - SLS gets a decent flight rate, it's not directly competing with commercial enterprise in the eyes of congress, commercial enterprise gets to make revenue, NASA doesn't have to deal with a mars mission using an expendable launch architecture, everyone gets to be winners.

For a real-world analogy, shuttle was used to launch a lot of ISS components and did some crew ops, but to make the project affordable soyuz and progress did a lot of the crew and cargo lifting. SLS is the shuttle of the modern era - let's use it in the manner in which shuttle had a commendable service history.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Pipcard on 05/14/2016 12:13 am
If they were doing manned Lunar Sortie missions in preparation for a small manned Outpost - it would have purpose! Two manned plus two cargo missions per year would give it a decent enough flight rate to justify the expense of the standing armies of production and infrastructure.
Indeed, but remember when a lunar mission requiring multiple SLS launches was considered to be bad news (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/08/dual-sls-required-nasas-lunar-landing-option/)? (because each launch is so cost inefficient, and the turnaround takes six months - was that a technical or budgetary limitation?) And they claimed that there wasn't enough funding for a lander.

It is beyond ridiculous that lunar missions during Apollo could be launched with one launch, but a similar capable launch vehicle now requires two launches. Unbelievable.

Yes, I know that this is an architecture for landing 4 astronauts at the poles. But still...

Concur! That was exactly the same reaction I had when I saw that when I first read the presentation, and why it's the headline.

"But still" is not an excuse, it's twice the number of astronauts with twice the surface stay time as Thorny pointed out (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32638.msg1086719#msg1086719).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2016 12:59 am
The 4x crew architecture shown in that article would be spectacular and useful - but of course, expensive. The most powerful Block II SLS version envisaged could do a more basic lunar mission in one launch - similar to the Apollo J-series missions but better. Say, a crew of two to the surface for a whole week instead of three days as in Apollo, with a lander halfway in size between the Apollo LM and Constellation's 'Altair'.

If they could keep the missions to 1x SLS Block II launch per time, then costs would be kept down, but capabilities could rise over time, with or without extra SLS launches. One week Sortie missions could use a crew of three to start with with two going to the surface and one staying in lunar orbit, as in Apollo. But once Habitation modules had been established on the surface, the crew could grow to 4x Astronauts with the lander taking them all down at once and the Orion orbiting alone as originally envisaged. And as mentioned by someone else, Outpost cargo supply could be done commercially. Heh, I could even see a version of Dragon soft-landing a couple tons of cargo next to an Outpost. Though for a basic Outpost discussion/design, we could start another thread ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/14/2016 03:23 am
If SpaceX doesn't die or massively change its ideological bent, they will be going to Mars at some point. Good for them - SLS can go to the moon, L1, L2, near earth asteroids, you name it. SpaceX's mars plans are comparatively razor sharp. NASA's mars goals are redirectable, and that's pivotal. I'm fairly certain that NASA top brass are conscious of this hence the emphasis on habitats and enabling technologies. If SLS and Orion get off the ground, they should be used in the sphere that they're suited for.

BFS will be flying long before any SLS-Orion missions set out toward another celestial body. BFS will be capable of Lunar landings. I would not at all be surprised by an early BFS demonstration landing on Luna. I think that after a BFS performs the highest number of missions to Mars that is deemed safe, or after it is replaced by a block upgrade, it may then be used to sell service for a couple of lunar missions to NASA, prior to permanent retirement. I have given up on SLS-Orion. They are never going to accomplish anything.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2016 05:58 am
You're putting a lot of faith into something that's not even close to flying! Still, I want you to be right far more than I don't...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/14/2016 03:41 pm
The 4x crew architecture shown in that article would be spectacular and useful - but of course, expensive. The most powerful Block II SLS version envisaged could do a more basic lunar mission in one launch - similar to the Apollo J-series missions but better. Say, a crew of two to the surface for a whole week instead of three days as in Apollo, with a lander halfway in size between the Apollo LM and Constellation's 'Altair'.

If they could keep the missions to 1x SLS Block II launch per time, then costs would be kept down, but capabilities could rise over time, with or without extra SLS launches. One week Sortie missions could use a crew of three to start with with two going to the surface and one staying in lunar orbit, as in Apollo. But once Habitation modules had been established on the surface, the crew could grow to 4x Astronauts with the lander taking them all down at once and the Orion orbiting alone as originally envisaged. And as mentioned by someone else, Outpost cargo supply could be done commercially. Heh, I could even see a version of Dragon soft-landing a couple tons of cargo next to an Outpost. Though for a basic Outpost discussion/design, we could start another thread ;)
Realistically plan on 1x1B launch plus additional commercial LVs eg FH, A6 and Vulcan,  per lunar mission. Crew go on SLS while commercial LVs deliver lander/landers and fuel to staging post. In case of large crew rovers, they maybe landed separate to crew, using commercial LVs.

SLS would only launch once commercial LVs have completed their work.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/14/2016 04:40 pm
Realistically plan on 1x1B launch plus additional commercial LVs eg FH, A6 and Vulcan,  per lunar mission. Crew go on SLS while commercial LVs deliver lander/landers and fuel to staging post. In case of large crew rovers, they maybe landed separate to crew, using commercial LVs. SLS would only launch once commercial LVs have completed their work.

Personally I believe that is the architecture that should be adopted. SLS tag teaming with commercial LVs. SLS can be used to launch crew and super heavy payloads (like an L2 gateway station) while commercial vehicles handle cargo delivery. As you mentioned one of the benefits of this architecture is that SLS can be launched as needed instead of having the weight of all the payload and the timetable of the mission. Then as time goes on we can have a lunar version of what is happening soon in LEO with commercial crew.

I have given up on SLS-Orion. They are never going to accomplish anything.

Whenever I see the short sighted arguments back and forth for SLS to be cancelled or for SLS to do all the work I am reminded of what it took to get to this point. It has been 44 years since the last moon landing. In my own time on this planet I can remember the late '90s and early 2000s when NASA couldn't even discuss going beyond LEO in the foreseeable future. I remember the calls from some after Columbia for manned spaceflight to be abandoned altogether. We have come a long way since then. The fact that we will soon have a wealth of capability with SLS/FH for BEO missions is a blessing.

Instead of endless arguments over which is the more "perfect" system can we please use what we have to actually do something instead of just talking about it? No system is perfectly sustainable or perfectly made. Be grateful for what we have and don't try to destroy a BEO capability that is years in the making just because it doesn't match up with what you think should happen.

Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled discussion. ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/14/2016 07:34 pm
This makes me think of a quote:
“Do. Or do not. There is no try.” Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back


Unfortunately this rings a bit of truth about manned BEO with SLS/Orion being an attempt ("try") rather than a solid "Do". In comparison Apollo was a solid "Do".

The Manned BEO program whatever it uses needs to be a solid "Do" in the minds of all the stakeholders in the effort. The stakeholders being NASA, Congress, the Administration, contractors, and even the US public.

So all the controversy is an extension of the "try". I like you would like to see manned BEO a "Do" no matter who or how it is done. If SLS/Orion get's it done then good.

My rant over.

No back to SLS:
Do we have any new hardware delivery milestones (that moved or not moved) related to this latest public statements of SLS/Orion being "on Track?.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/14/2016 07:51 pm
I have given up on SLS-Orion. They are never going to accomplish anything.

Whenever I see the short sighted arguments back and forth for SLS to be cancelled or for SLS to do all the work I am reminded of what it took to get to this point. It has been 44 years since the last moon landing. In my own time on this planet I can remember the late '90s and early 2000s when NASA couldn't even discuss going beyond LEO in the foreseeable future. I remember the calls from some after Columbia for manned spaceflight to be abandoned altogether. We have come a long way since then. The fact that we will soon have a wealth of capability with SLS/FH for BEO missions is a blessing.

Instead of endless arguments over which is the more "perfect" system can we please use what we have to actually do something instead of just talking about it? No system is perfectly sustainable or perfectly made. Be grateful for what we have and don't try to destroy a BEO capability that is years in the making just because it doesn't match up with what you think should happen.

Rant over. Continue with your regularly scheduled discussion. ;D

1. It isn't short-sighted.
2. I didn't call for it to be cancelled. It will accomplish that on its own.
3. What it took to get to this point....this point is actually loss of ground.
4. In MY time on this planet, I remember seeing six manned lunar landings in a matter of months. YOUR time on this planet....well....I'm sad we regressed during that time.
5. Use what we have to do something? What we have isn't capable of doing anything. We had MORE capable architecture when I was a teenager almost 5 decades ago.
6. Be grateful for what we have??? Um...NO. Throwing good money after bad is foolish. It's time to let go of that albatross. (The thing is so expensive that there is no money for payloads...not for Mars, which is what they say the thing is for. Orion isn't Mars capable. There isn't even money for a lunar lander.) SpaceX' architecture is going to be more cost effective by between one and two orders of magnitude. It's time to get on the right ship.
7. You are right about that being a rant.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 05/15/2016 12:19 am

3. What it took to get to this point....this point is actually loss of ground.

How is that so? Sure we aren't landing people on the moon so it is a loss of ground from the lunar landings but I am referring to the time period after that. From the point where the lunar landings ceased (LEO flights only and no BEO capable rocket or spacecraft) to now the last few years have seen a tremendous amount of ground regained. We are actually building the systems that will allow for BEO missions (SLS, FH, Orion etc.). 20 years ago that was a pipe dream.

Quote
4. In MY time on this planet, I remember seeing six manned lunar landings in a matter of months.
YOUR
time on this planet....well....I'm sad we regressed during that time.5. Use what we have to do something? What we have isn't capable of doing anything. We had MORE capable architecture when I was a teenager almost 5 decades ago.

I understand your frustration. That said the fact that you saw the lunar landings and experienced the amount of time it has taken to even consider BEO missions again should show you that getting money spent on BEO mission capable systems (from both government and private sources) is progress.

Quote
6. Be grateful for what we have??? Um...NO. Throwing good money after bad is foolish. It's time to let go of that albatross. (The thing is so expensive that there is no money for payloads...not for Mars, which is what they say the thing is for. Orion isn't Mars capable. There isn't even money for a lunar lander.) SpaceX' architecture is going to be more cost effective by between one and two orders of magnitude. It's time to get on the right ship.

This is what I was trying to address in my post. There is no need to turn this into a "us vs. them" (SpaceX vs. NASA) fight. None of us has a crystal ball that enables us to see the future. It is very possible that SpaceX's architecture will outclass and replace SLS/Orion in the future. I am fine with that.

The point that needs to be made here is that SLS/Orion are not impeding that architecture. You might say, "Well if the SLS money was going to SpaceX...." but even if that was the case SpaceX would be subject to the same Congressional funding cycle whims that NASA is subject to. It is far better for SpaceX to develop their architecture under their direction and funding streams. That way there is dissimilar redundancy (if SLS/Orion fails we have a backup and vice versa) and SpaceX is free of any government meddling.

Also the fact is that SLS/Orion take up less room in the budget than the shuttle did (and I will note we built a massive space station while simultaneously flying the shuttle). Sure it is more expensive than we want but lets not treat it as the most expensive thing ever.

This "you are only a space fan if you love SpaceX and hate SLS/Orion" attitude (or the reverse) is getting quite tiring.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The Amazing Catstronaut on 05/15/2016 12:35 am
Hold the horses. I believe SpaceX's BEO architecture is going to be the future, but that horse isn't old enough for the races yet.

The problem with SLS is not the LV - granted, the fundamental ethos behind it is dated. Yes, it will be approaching the point of being outmoded by the time it launches. Is it too expensive? Yes. Is it useless? No. Is the program salvageable? Yes.

With clear BEO targets and a respectable launch cadence SLS becomes an enabler and will start to pay back on its investment. Without those targets, at least SLS employed some people. It's only public money anyhow - it'll all end back in the pockets of the taxpayer at some point. The true loss is time and a lack of focus and missed intellectual capital if SLS falls flat. That's why it's crucial SLS works. That's why we should be invested in seeing SLS succeed.

You don't need to stand up for SpaceX. SpaceX is doing a real fine job of standing up for itself.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RyanC on 05/15/2016 01:59 am
Don't worry, Long March 9 will do what SLS couldn't do; along with MCT.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/15/2016 07:04 am
Instead of endless arguments over which is the more "perfect" system can we please use what we have to actually do something instead of just talking about it? No system is perfectly sustainable or perfectly made. Be grateful for what we have and don't try to destroy a BEO capability that is years in the making just because it doesn't match up with what you think should happen.

{rant}
This "use what we have to do something" attitude is the problem with post-2000 NASA plans. There's no long range planning, no technology development, since congress won't increase the budget, let's just use what legacy system we have (i.e. leftover Shuttle hardware)  to do something (repeat Apollo).

Let's say the next few Presidents want to redo Apollo, Orion and SLS block II won't be ready until 2024 at the earliest, add a new lander, you're looking at landing on the Moon in 2035 or so. Then what? You're still using the legacy system which has very limited growth potential, you're basically boxed in with no way out, so most likely it would be similar to the Shuttle where you repeat the same thing for another 30 years. Forgive me for not finding this inspirational.

This is never about SpaceX or "perfect" system, people used to obsess about DC-X/X-33 too, I bet you'll see SLS vs very/very/very big brother if Bezos announces a super heavy tomorrow. The reason people don't respect program of record "BEO" capability is because it's so depressing.
{/rant}
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Dasun on 05/15/2016 02:00 pm
Good grief so much wretched hand wringing !

Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint . 

SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used.  But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.

Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/15/2016 05:59 pm
Good grief so much wretched hand wringing !

Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint . 

SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used.  But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.

Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...

So what if flight metal is being bent? What good is a rocket when there's nothing to put on top of it?

Your 2018 launch may well be the only launch SLS ever sees. As for BFR not making it beyond Powerpoint-no one believed SET (Space Exploration Technologies aka SpaceX) could build rockets as cheaply as they do and virtually everyone said returning a rocket from hypersonic speed and landing it on its tail was beyond impossible. SET has not only done that, in a matter of months they have done it in the middle of the ocean.......beginning the burn mere seconds before impact.......setting the thing perfectly in the center of a bullseye.

I am tired of living in the past. SLS is literally going nowhere. SET has proven their technological, logistical, and financial management prowess. SLS exists for one reason-to funnel pork. People who believe that SLS is the future are like admirals who clung to battleships after Pearl Harbor. Their future was in carriers. I don't have that many years left on this planet and I want to see my species on the Red Planet in my lifetime. SLS ain't going there. FH with Raptor US may well land humans there before SLS carries its first human aloft. It is time to let go of the past and embrace the future. SpaceX is that future.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/15/2016 07:01 pm
The SLS does have missions, after first 2-3 shake down  flights. They will do extended missions in cislunar space with EAM, this has been given initial funding.

Going back to moon will then be a option, at least transport will exist.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/15/2016 09:34 pm
The SLS does have missions, after first 2-3 shake down  flights. They will do extended missions in cislunar space with EAM, this has been given initial funding.

I'm sorry, just floating around in space somewhere in the vicinity of the moon does not qualify as a mission following what I observed in my teens, half a century ago. That notion is just downright sad.

I want to move forward; this is only moving backwards.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jtrame on 05/15/2016 09:40 pm
At least we're going from "it will never fly" to "ok, it will fly, but just once.  Maybe twice. But not more than 10 or 20 times.  That much is certain."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/15/2016 10:58 pm
I want to move forward; this is only moving backwards.
While this thread continues to go in circles.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/16/2016 01:06 am
Flight metal is being bent, the SLS/Orion stack will fly BEO unmanned in late 2018 ( assuming a successful launch! ) and BFR will not even be past PDR and may never make it beyond Powerpoint .

I am a SpaceX fan, but I don't see anything SpaceX is doing now or in the future to be in "competition" with the SLS.

Why?  In order to have a competition there has to be something to compete for, and so far there is really nothing.  Sure, a few things are being considered, and mandated specifically and only for the SLS.  But otherwise there are no long-term U.S. Government plans or programs for SpaceX or anyone else to compete for.

And Congress is not basing their decision to fund the SLS based on what SpaceX does or doesn't do.  I can pretty much guarantee you that.

Quote
SLS is a heavy lift tool, it is up to future administrations to decide if and how it will be used.

That is bassackwards.  That is the "build it and they will come" way of spending taxpayer money, and the success rate of such attempts is not good.

Quote
But if it is used it can plug into many exploration architectures - both alone or in concert with commercial - as the first element of moving big stuff upstairs.

The SLS is a U.S. Government-only asset.  It won't be used by other countries, and it is unlikely that commercial needs for such a vehicle would appear before the next President assesses the future of the SLS.

Quote
Be thankful that serious talk of BEO is happening now, it has been a long time coming for us true believers and might still die on the vine ...

There is no serious talk, only talk.  And not enough being talked about to fill up the SLS operational launch schedule.

Plus, as many of us in the space community who advocate for expanding humanity out into space know, cost is the most important factor, not payload size.  So in order for the SLS to survive a review by the next President, there needs to be a significant need for it's unique capabilities - and there needs to be enough money allocated by Congress in order to support it.

We'll see if that happens...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 05/16/2016 03:52 pm
Agreed, SLS is perfectly scaled for a lunar program and would be an enabler for a manned return to the moon. It's too expensive to go to Mars with expendables but you can go to the moon with expendables. Why not? It would justify SLS having a flight rate of value, without requiring so many launches that it should be bank breaking beyond what SLS already is.  SLS at least makes an Apollo-like program repeatable, certainly enables large payloads to cislunar and perhaps even a minor lunar surface outpost.

However, it's not going to be used for any of those things yet, which is eyewatering. I can see a shift to lunar for SLS happening eventually, but it's not going to happen in this tumultuous year.
I'm quoting this post again because I've had a little more time to think about the Moon vs Mars debate in the context of SLS. I don't think the operational and launch costs of SLS are really what drives the choice of destination, at least not any more than any other expendable or even reusable launcher. The Moon is just so much cheaper that NASA can go back to the Moon with a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time with or without SLS consuming funds. Additionally even if the launch vehicles were free NASA would still not be in much better shape to go to Mars.

The Moon is easy enough, just need a lander. A while back Bolden told Congress that would cost $8 billion. When he said that many said he was being overly pessimistic but lets just go with that for now. I think an application of the lessons learned from the commercial crew program could bring that down significantly. So to put someone on the surface of the Moon by 2025 roughly a billions dollars at most is needed on average per year. It isn't too difficult to play with NASA's budget come up with the funds with or without SLS, especially if Congress kicks in a bit more money.

NASA is not planning on anyone setting foot on Mars until some time after 2030. It is also not clear where the funds to do that are going to come from. Some optimism is needed to see a future funding scenario that supports that. Eliminating SLS will free about $1.5-2 billion a year. Though some of that money will need to be invested in replicating SLS's capability, paying for facilities the SLS program covers but still need to be paid for, and some may just evaporate from NASA's budget. Even if it is as high as an extra billion a year is that all the difference between NASA being able to go to Mars and not being able to do so in a realistic amount of time?

SpaceX says that in the same time frame they will be going to Mars. If so then SLS will be obsolete in that regard, but so will everything else NASA is doing. If that is an argument for canceling SLS then it is an argument for canceling all of NASA's BEO plans that don't explicitly help or fund SpaceX.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/17/2016 09:35 pm
The Moon is just so much cheaper that NASA can go back to the Moon with a reasonable budget in a reasonable amount of time with or without SLS consuming funds.  Additionally even if the launch vehicles were free NASA would still not be in much better shape to go to Mars.

The cost driver of going to any destination is not really the cost of the transportation.  It's everything else.

Quote
The Moon is easy enough, just need a lander.

If all you want to do is just land there and then come back.  Like repeating Apollo 11.

Quote
A while back Bolden told Congress that would cost $8 billion. When he said that many said he was being overly pessimistic but lets just go with that for now.

I think that actually low based on using these two NASA programs as a reference:

1.  Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) - cost $1.5B and took 7 years from proposal to launch.

2.  The Orion spacecraft, which will be human-rated, will have taken at least $8B and 18 years by the time it becomes operational.

Quote
I think an application of the lessons learned from the commercial crew program could bring that down significantly. So to put someone on the surface of the Moon by 2025 roughly a billions dollars at most is needed on average per year. It isn't too difficult to play with NASA's budget come up with the funds with or without SLS, especially if Congress kicks in a bit more money.

Those in Congress that support NASA-owned hardware do not like the Commercial Cargo & Crew programs.  Obama had to fight hard for Commercial Crew, and it is unlikely the political dynamics will change.

And the calculus you leave out of all of this is that you only quote costs for a single barebones mission, yet the hardware architecture you talk about it is oriented towards a long-term effort.  That doesn't add up.

You are totally underestimating the cost of NASA "going back to the Moon".

Quote
NASA is not planning on anyone setting foot on Mars until some time after 2030.

Let's be honest here.  At it's current budget levels NASA will never get to Mars as part of a NASA-only effort.  Never.

And there is no government mandate for NASA to send humans to Mars.  Everything NASA has done to date has been part of "science", but going to Mars will have to be a political decision.

Quote
SpaceX says that in the same time frame they will be going to Mars. If so then SLS will be obsolete in that regard, but so will everything else NASA is doing.

Not at all.  NASA's goals are not the same as SpaceX, and NASA's goals today barely touch on sending humans to other planets.  There is not a lot of overlap.

Quote
If that is an argument for canceling SLS...

It's not.  The SLS is a U.S. Government-only transportation system, so the only reason to build it is if the U.S. Government has a sustained need for it's unique capabilities.  So far that has not proven to be a correct assumption, thus the questions for why we are building it.  "Build it and they will come" is not a justification, it's a wish...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/17/2016 10:36 pm
I believe SLS is overkill for even the moon.  With fuel depots, and SEP tugs, and moon infrastructure can be built using existing EELV's and F9 and Falcon Heavies.  This at a lower cost per/kg of material sent to L1 or to the moon.  The money spent on one SLS launch could be spent building and supplying the moon infrastructure, using commercial bidders.  A new metholox upper for Falcon Heavy, and ACES for the upcoming Vulcan.  Together both launch providers could supply this infrastructure.

Maybe SLS could launch a larger Mars Lander that could be refueled in LEO by fuel depots.  Even then using the Vulcan and FH NASA could build a NautilusX type Mars transporter with landers.  All the money supporting and launching SLS could build both moon centric and Mars centric infrastructure.  Over $1 billion per launch for 105 tons to LEO.  A Vulcan with ACES plus a FH with metholox upper (engine being developed) could launch over 105 tons for less than half the price. 
 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/18/2016 03:14 am
I believe SLS is overkill for even the moon.  With fuel depots, and SEP tugs, and moon infrastructure can be built using existing EELV's and F9 and Falcon Heavies.  This at a lower cost per/kg of material sent to L1 or to the moon.  The money spent on one SLS launch could be spent building and supplying the moon infrastructure, using commercial bidders.  A new metholox upper for Falcon Heavy, and ACES for the upcoming Vulcan.  Together both launch providers could supply this infrastructure.

Maybe SLS could launch a larger Mars Lander that could be refueled in LEO by fuel depots.  Even then using the Vulcan and FH NASA could build a NautilusX type Mars transporter with landers.  All the money supporting and launching SLS could build both moon centric and Mars centric infrastructure.  Over $1 billion per launch for 105 tons to LEO.  A Vulcan with ACES plus a FH with metholox upper (engine being developed) could launch over 105 tons for less than half the price. 
 
You write this comparison as if the "fuel depots, ... SEP tugs, .... moon infrastructure", and "metholox upper stage for Falcon Heavy" cost nothing.  Those items will cost billions of dollars themselves.  I think you may also be positing a Vulcan Heavy, which is not being developed.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/18/2016 04:20 am
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets.  Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.  I mentioned Vulcan with ACES, which in itself is a heavy launcher, I think was 40 tons with solids.  I think in hindsight, upgrading the EELV's like Atlas V to heavy version or a 5m phase II version with ACES, then add the heavy option would have been cheaper and would have been a 50 ton launcher.  Of course now the "Russian" engines. 

Had NASA went with the original plan of 4 segment boosters, SSME's, and spent the money making an air startable SSME or RS-25 version air startable, then it would have been cheaper and gotten the same results.  The money spent on the solids making them 5 segments, was very expensive, for little results.  The infrastructure was already in place for the 4 segments even refurbishment.  Seem's like NASA has spent so much money doing studies, then even going so far as developing engines, never to be used like J2X, then congress getting involved.  I see now then using private companies, and bidding it gets far better results.  Government bureaus can and are very expensive, wasteful, and it's makes a camel in committees, when they could use a horse.  NASA has become just like other government agencies who make things in certain congressional districts and states just to get the money, even if it is more expensive.  It is not the stay focused NASA of the 60's I grew up with. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/18/2016 02:48 pm
I'd like for any lunar lander to be a surface access system. There would be a common descent stage with either a crew ascent stage, a cargo hopper (which would double as a small pressurised rover garage) or a hab module. The objective being to enable extended lunar surface sorties of >1 lunar day, exploring large chunks of the surface. It could also be used to establish an outpost not dissimilar to the one at the South Pole here on Earth.

It occurs to me that, with SpaceX planning to at least look at fully-propulsive Mars EDL, you could at least think of using the common descent stage, with better engines and supersonic drogue parachutes, as a cargo delivery system for Mars too.

The credo is to use as few common spaceframes for as many applications as possible. It means reduced efficiency (as you'll not be optimising for the environment of just one target body) but you'll be balancing that with not having to design and prove a whole new vehicle for every new destination.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/18/2016 06:17 pm
It's not.  The SLS is a U.S. Government-only transportation system, so the only reason to build it is if the U.S. Government has a sustained need for it's unique capabilities.  So far that has not proven to be a correct assumption, thus the questions for why we are building it.  "Build it and they will come" is not a justification, it's a wish...

Shuttle was a U.S. Government transportation system and it launched payloads provided by other countries. Why was Shuttle not U.S. Government only while SLS that is being operated the same way will be?

To be frank, the U.S. government doesn't have a need for much of anything NASA does. It is discretionary spending. Why is NASA building a Mars 2020 rover? All government programs can be questioned on an absolute need basis. It is like Jenga, you can take out individual pieces and the whole thing doesn't collapse.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/18/2016 07:11 pm
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets.  Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.
SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch.  That's a bargain!  NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS.  The ISS program itself costs NASA something like $3.9 billion per year, nearly twice as much as SLS is getting each year.  Should we end ISS too and give the money to SpaceX?

We've all known that existing launch vehicles could get humans to the Moon.  Griffin said as much, and I even advocated such an idea  ( http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html ), but SLS isn't going to the Moon.  NASA's Mars DRM 5.0 called for nine Ares 5 launches for a single mission to the Red Planet.  The rocket that will get humans to Mars has to be big.  SpaceX itself is not planning to use Falcon Heavy for humans to Mars.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/18/2016 09:02 pm
Shuttle was a U.S. Government transportation system and it launched payloads provided by other countries.

Co-manifested maybe, but I just looked through the Shuttle mission history and I didn't see any foreign government or foreign corporation payloads that were the primary payloads.  The vast majority of missions were for the U.S. Government.

Quote
Why was Shuttle not U.S. Government only while SLS that is being operated the same way will be?

The government cannot compete with the private sector - that is against the law.  So if the U.S. Government wants to sell launch services it has to charge fair market value, meaning a likely $1B+ per launch.  Who can afford that amount of money for one launch?

For instance, any european country that wants to send lots of mass into space will be forced politically to consider their domestic launch capabilities, and the first question will be to ask if the ultimate need can be broken down into payloads that can fit on those domestic launchers.  No doubt they can, and keeping the money "in-house" means they can spend more than if they use NASA.

It's hard to see a scenario where another country wants to pay for SLS launches.

Quote
To be frank, the U.S. government doesn't have a need for much of anything NASA does. It is discretionary spending. Why is NASA building a Mars 2020 rover?

We Americans have a history of supporting "science", and that is what our current space program is focused on, both for the ISS and for our robotic missions.

However sending humans to Mars, or back to the Moon, is more than "science", it's a prelude to colonization, and that is not yet supported politically.  There needs to be a national conversation about our goals for sending humans to space, but so far no one has decided to start that conversation.

And it could turn out that politically no one wants to support government-funded colonization of space.

But "science" is still likely to be supported.  Unfortunately that is not enough demand to support the need for a dedicated government-owned HLV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/18/2016 10:08 pm

We Americans have a history of supporting "science", and that is what our current space program is focused on, both for the ISS and for our robotic missions.

However sending humans to Mars, or back to the Moon, is more than "science", it's a prelude to colonization, and that is not yet supported politically.  There needs to be a national conversation about our goals for sending humans to space, but so far no one has decided to start that conversation.

And it could turn out that politically no one wants to support government-funded colonization of space.

But "science" is still likely to be supported.  Unfortunately that is not enough demand to support the need for a dedicated government-owned HLV.

Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS. This will bring up obvious questions like return to the Moon and a Moon Base. NASA needs to be ready with the obvious answers.

Manned landings appear to be possible in the new president's second term.

What design of launch vehicle and reentry capsule are used to get astronauts to the Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit has not yet been decided.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: QuantumG on 05/18/2016 10:12 pm
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.

... and people wonder why I'm cynical.

We've been hearing these claims for years now. Still waiting.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/18/2016 11:04 pm
Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon and manned US spacecraft docking to the ISS.

... and people wonder why I'm cynical.

We've been hearing these claims for years now. Still waiting.



This is off topic for SLS.
Your waiting will soon be over. Delays are now due to problems found when testing prototype hardware.

I will allow the Commercial Crew supporters to speak for the ISS programs.

The Critical Design Review (CDR) on the Astrobotic Technology cargo lander is due next month (June 2016).

Something to watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3Nn_2mTjI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER3Nn_2mTjI)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/19/2016 02:34 am
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/19/2016 08:00 am
The billions spent on SLS could have been spent on this infrastructure instead using existing or with a little upgrading existing upgraded rockets.  Yes, there would be a lot of in space assembly, but that keeps everyone busy instead of one launch a year.
SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch.  That's a bargain!  NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS.  The ISS program itself costs NASA something like $3.9 billion per year, nearly twice as much as SLS is getting each year.

If we're going to compare NASA-managed programs with commercially-managed ones, let's make it as apples-to-apples as we can.  If SLS costs $10 billion to first flight, Falcon Heavy will cost far less to the same milestone.  And if we count only cost to the US government, Falcon Heavy will be far, far cheaper than SLS.  SLS Block 1 is more capable, to be sure, but not in proportion to its cost.  As for crew capsules, Orion will be over $17 billion to first crewed flight (http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/orion-passes-kdp-c-cautious-2023-crew-debut), ignoring the costs of its service module.  And that's assuming it flies in 2021, which is unlikely.  Compare that with the two commercial-crew vehicles.  And they're both more capable than Orion is without its service module and have lower recurring costs.  The Space Access Society has put out a comparison of the prices of the two programs (http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau147.html): Orion/SLS does not come out looking good (discussion here (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38187.msg1423497#msg1423497) and following).

Quote
Should we end ISS too and give the money to SpaceX?

Of course not.  What the government should do is decide what it needs to achieve its objectives (presumably go to Mars) and ask whether those needs are best met by the government or by American industry.  When it comes to launch services and crew transport, it appears that the question has not been asked.  Or if it has, the answer has been provided by legislative fiat.

Quote
We've all known that existing launch vehicles could get humans to the Moon.  Griffin said as much, and I even advocated such an idea  ( http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/moonslo.html ), but SLS isn't going to the Moon.  NASA's Mars DRM 5.0 called for nine Ares 5 launches for a single mission to the Red Planet.  The rocket that will get humans to Mars has to be big.  SpaceX itself is not planning to use Falcon Heavy for humans to Mars.

Yes, but SpaceX speaks of colonizing Mars, whereas NASA talks of sending a few astronauts per decade.  SpaceX has said that for sending a few astronauts, a Falcon Heavy-sized rocket will do. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34856.msg1211693#msg1211693)  Maybe SpaceX is wrong, but the possibility should be seriously studied before being dismissed.  As far as I can tell, that has not happened.  And even if SpaceX is wrong, the possibility of buying heavy-lift launch services from American industry should be considered.  As far as I can tell, it has not.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/19/2016 10:45 am

SLS is costing about $10 billion in development up to its first launch.  That's a bargain!  NASA is spending $6.8 billion to develop commercial crew during the same time frame, just to get to ISS. 

Apples to Oranges comparison. You're comparing the cost to get a launch vehicle with what verges on a dummy payload (and, let's not forget, a defunded U/S) to its first test launch to the cost of creating two crew-ready ETO transport systems practically from scratch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/19/2016 02:01 pm
Maybe the only way SLS costs per flight will come down is if ATK/Orbital develops the solid rocket based on the SLS boosters and shares the Kennedy space facilities and launch pad with NASA.  It might not be as cost competitive as either Vulcan or Falcon Heavy, but if it can help bring down the launch costs. 

I see the advantage SpaceX is using by incremental improvements over time, then going to their heavy version.  The Russian R-7/Soyuz had done the same.  This is the approach by using the old Direct method.  Sure the first version only got 70 tons to orbit, but it would have gotten us the ability to at least get to L1 or the Moon.  Then incremental improvements, one at a time, like 5 seg boosters, using an existing upper stage say from Delta IV to begin with, then stretch the core and add 5 engines, then develop the J2X upper stage, then the composite boosters or liquid boosters.  Not all at one time, but over time and use some money to begin deep space exploration/outposts/colonization. Lift capacity could gradually improve from say 70 tons to 150 tons with liquid boosters. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 05/19/2016 02:04 pm
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year?
Its a simple question but I think everyone has their own answer depending on their opinion of SLS. Some like to throw in the development cost too. According to them SLS costs billions per launch. Others like to quote only the marginal cost, leaving out the yearly program support cost. From their viewpoint SLS cost about $300 million per launch.

My favored way to look at it is the entire yearly budget divided by the number of flights. The rocket is in development right now so its hard to say what the fixed or marginal costs will be. It is probably going to keep getting roughly the same budget each year so $2 billion might not be a bad guess. If they can launch 4 a year then a ball park figure is probably in the neighborhood of $500 million per launch give or take a lot. The program requirements are up to 3 launches a year. It has been debated if they can do more than that without too much difficulty.

In general since the fixed costs can be spread out over more launches the price per launch will keep decreasing as the number of launches increases. With a high fixed support cost two launches a year represents a substantial increase over just one launch a year in the price per kg.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/19/2016 02:23 pm
The numbers I saw were between $1 to $1.3 billion for one launch per year, which includes marginal and fixed costs to operate.  That is why I was asking what would 3-4 per year cost.  If it costs $500 billion for 3 launches per year, then to me it would make sense to launch it 3 times a year for $1.5 billion vs $1.3 for one.  Then use the heavy lift to build a Mars transporter one year, fuel the thing the next and go to Mars.  Or, use the heavy lift to build an L1 or L2 gateway station for the moon or Mars.  Throw the money from the ISS to do this.  A station at L1 or L2 would be more exciting than a LEO station.  Falcon Heavies and future Vulcan's with ACES could bring astronauts to one of these stations without using SLS.  Or keep it supplied like they do now with ISS.  I also think you would get more international help/support or participation with something like this.  In space stations and equipment should be designed as modular and long lasting as possible.  At least 20 years or longer.  Components could be replaced with modular components instead of just crashing the thing like ISS to keep it going.  We build ships and planes to last 50 years or more.  Why not in space components and transportation systems. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Graham on 05/19/2016 02:39 pm
We build ships and planes to last 50 years or more.  Why not in space components and transportation systems.

We build those ships and planes to last 50 years with the expectation that there are vast maintenance crews to keep them in shape. A team of engineers fixing something on Earth is much easier than it is for two astronauts in EMUs. And that's simple mechanical failures, there's also the simple fact that space is a far harsher environment. There is radiation and micrometeorite concern, and there's not a whole lot we can do about the latter. And on top of all that whatever gets launched has to fit within a fairing, not be over weight, and survive the environment of the launch.

One day our infrastructure in space will be good enough to allow things to regularly operate for 50 years, but in the foreseeable future it will be very difficult and expensive to do that. Just go look at the ISS status reports on L2 and see how much of the time the crew has to spend dealing with equipment issues.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/19/2016 02:46 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.  It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available. 

This is no small task.  Thinking small won't get it done.  It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government. 

In my opinion.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/19/2016 02:53 pm
How much per launch would the SLS cost if they launched say 4 per year?
Its a simple question but I think everyone has their own answer depending on their opinion of SLS. Some like to throw in the development cost too. According to them SLS costs billions per launch. Others like to quote only the marginal cost, leaving out the yearly program support cost. From their viewpoint SLS cost about $300 million per launch.

My favored way to look at it is the entire yearly budget divided by the number of flights. The rocket is in development right now so its hard to say what the fixed or marginal costs will be. It is probably going to keep getting roughly the same budget each year so $2 billion might not be a bad guess. If they can launch 4 a year then a ball park figure is probably in the neighborhood of $500 million per launch give or take a lot. The program requirements are up to 3 launches a year. It has been debated if they can do more than that without too much difficulty.

In general since the fixed costs can be spread out over more launches the price per launch will keep decreasing as the number of launches increases. With a high fixed support cost two launches a year represents a substantial increase over just one launch a year in the price per kg.

Just a question to put things into perspective -- in 2016 dollars, how much did each Saturn V launch cost?  And how much did they cost expressed in the various ways you have given for SLS above?

My guess is that Saturn V was comparably more expensive per launch than SLS looks like it will be.  And except for 1969, it never was launched more than twice in any given calendar year -- in fact, it was launched once in 1967, twice in 1968, four times in 1969, once in 1970, twice in 1971, twice in 1972 and once in 1973.  Of those 13 launches, of course, 10 flew crews, nine flew crews to the Moon, and one flew with only its first two stages live.

It has always sounded to me like SLS was being designed for the average flight rate of the Saturn V, and thus I think a cost comparison would be illuminating...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2016 02:58 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.  It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available. 

This is no small task.  Thinking small won't get it done.  It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government. 

That is why it is not going to happen.  US government is not going to fund manned mars missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/19/2016 03:02 pm
Based on earlier posts, more production facilities would be needed to go beyond 2 launchers a years (and current production may actually do less than 2 a year). So it isn't just increasing the production rate but the cost of expanding production facilities.

But the likely costs per launch, based on STS, would approach $1 billion per launch. So 4 launches per year would be $4 billion. Plus, what would be launched? The current hole in the SLS program is the lack of payloads.

So scrapping the ISS would be a drop in the bucket to increase SLS launch rate and building the payloads.

The rest about building 50 year stations and the such is a whole other subject.

But the common thread is that to do all these things requires a larger budget. Moving money around from one program to another, even ending one program to benefit another, will not be enough.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2016 03:04 pm

Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon

Nonsense.
a.  There are no NASA landers in design much less production
b.  There are no commercial ones even close to launching in that time frame  And if they did, they have no affect on NASA funding


Manned landings appear to be possible in the new president's second term.


The next president doesn't care about manned lunar missions.


What design of launch vehicle and reentry capsule are used to get astronauts to the Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit has not yet been decided.

Because there is no Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit program for astronauts to go to and there won't be one since the next president doesn't care about space
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jtrame on 05/19/2016 03:06 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars. 

US government is not going to fund manned mars missions.

My sense of it is that it will be an international effort like the ISS and the U.S. will fund part of it including the use of SLS for some of the heavy lifting.  That's just an opinion.  The scope of the project is so large it's hard to imagine one country taking it on alone.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 05/19/2016 03:20 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.  It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available. 

This is no small task.  Thinking small won't get it done.  It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government. 

In my opinion.

 - Ed Kyle

Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration), I will completely agree with you, Ed.  We will need all of the resources you mention to mount any manned BLEO expeditions.  All of the various commercial launchers and commercial satellite developers will have plenty of work in such efforts, if they want to bid for it.

I keep seeing this as a logical result of how such large projects must be funded in today's funding environment.  You just can't afford to do an Apollo-style program where all of the various elements are funded at the same time, all of which are scheduled to be complete and available for a series of scheduled and funded missions.

You have to develop the pieces serially and not in parallel, for the most part -- although there will obviously be overlaps.  The first piece to be developed for BLEO missions was the Earth-to-space-to-Earth shuttle vehicle -- Orion.  The second piece is SLS.  The third piece will be transit hab modules, and we are about to see contracts let to develop ground-based demo versions of trans habs.  If they do a good enough job, the demo vehicle(s) may even fly on ISS.

The fourth piece will be a higher-end ion propulsion unit (which has seen study contracts let over the past several years, so development contracts may be another two or three years out).  The fifth and final piece will be the mission-specific hardware.  That will always be the last piece, because you will vary that piece and use the first four pieces plus that specialized fifth element to accomplish different missions.  For example, you need a microgravity base station for a mission to an asteroid, or to Mars' moons, while you need a lander and a surface hab for Mars surface operations.

In my vision, building and launching pieces three, four and five are the areas where you're going to see commercial launch and spacecraft vendors coming to the fore.  You might see an ACES-based lander bringing a crew to the Martian surface, there to inhabit a Bigelow surface hab that was launched on a Falcon Heavy.   Lots of possible combinations.

But a lot of the pieces will require the SLS to get them off Earth, I am convinced.  It will be a needful part of any BLEO expeditions, at least IMHO...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/19/2016 03:21 pm
Don't forget that US support for the ISS only happened for solidly geopolitical reasons: the US didn't want bankrupt Russian aerospace firms selling their know-how to people like Saddam Hussein. There would need to be a similar overriding US national security motive for any government involvement in an accelerated Mars program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/19/2016 05:30 pm

Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),

The opinion also includes that the governments aren't going fund it anyways.  Almost 60 years since going to the moon and still have only words and no money to go back. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jtrame on 05/19/2016 05:46 pm
Don't forget that US support for the ISS only happened for solidly geopolitical reasons: the US didn't want bankrupt Russian aerospace firms selling their know-how to people like Saddam Hussein. There would need to be a similar overriding US national security motive for any government involvement in an accelerated Mars program.

Whatever the reasons that got it built, I would hope the lesson learned from ISS would be that international cooperation in space exploration makes sense for a lot of reasons.  Cost being the biggest. 

Maybe it will be a smaller coalition, USA, ESA, JSA, etc.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/19/2016 06:26 pm

Within about 2 years the world will see American landers on the Moon

Nonsense.
a.  There are no NASA landers in design much less production
b.  There are no commercial ones even close to launching in that time frame  And if they did, they have no affect on NASA funding

I wrote American not NASA. You obviously think the 3 commercial lunar cargo landers in Lunar CATALYST will take more than 2 years to complete.

If NASA can use a film about someone surviving on Mars in its budget request to Congress I suspect news headlines about rovers on the Moon can also be used.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/3-Status_of_AES.pdf (http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/3-Status_of_AES.pdf)

Quote

Manned landings appear to be possible in the new president's second term.


The next president doesn't care about manned lunar missions.


That is an opinion not a fact.

What candidates and presidents care about can change.

Quote


What design of launch vehicle and reentry capsule are used to get astronauts to the Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit has not yet been decided.

Because there is no Deep Space Habitat in lunar orbit program for astronauts to go to and there won't be one since the next president doesn't care about space

This is the second year of NextSTEP. I am not giving up on it yet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kryten on 05/28/2016 02:04 pm
 Three more cubesats for EM-1, including a lander;
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/international-partners-provide-cubesats-for-sls-maiden-flight
Quote
For the first SLS flight, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) and the University of Tokyo will jointly create and provide two CubeSats, EQUULEUS (EQUilibriUm Lunar-Earth point 6U Spacecraft) and OMOTENASHI (Outstanding MOon exploration TEchnologies demonstrated by NAno Semi-Hard Impactor). EQUULEUS will help scientists understand the radiation environment in the region of space around Earth by imaging Earth’s plasmasphere and measuring the distribution of plasma that surrounds the planet. This opportunity may provide important insight for protecting both humans and electronics from radiation damage during long space journeys. It will also demonstrate low-energy trajectory control techniques, such as multiple lunar flybys, within the Earth-Moon region.

JAXA also will use the OMOTENASHI to demonstrate the technology for low-cost and very small spacecraft to explore the lunar surface. This technology could open up new possibilities for future missions to inexpensively investigate the surface of the moon. The CubeSat will also take measurements of the radiation environment near the moon as well as on the lunar surface.
[...]
The Italian company Argotec is building the ArgoMoon CubeSat under the Italian Space Agency (ASI) internal review and approval process. ArgoMoon will demonstrate the ability to perform operations in close proximity of the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS), which will send Orion onto its lunar trajectory. It should also record images of the ICPS for historical documentation and to provide valuable mission data on the deployment of other Cubesats. Additionally, this CubeSat should test optical communication capabilities between the CubeSat and Earth.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/28/2016 09:37 pm

Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),

The opinion also includes that the governments aren't going fund it anyways.  Almost 60 years since going to the moon and still have only words and no money to go back. 
Correct. And anyone here who thinks this will change with the next president really ought to step out of phantasy-land.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/29/2016 09:11 pm

Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration),

The opinion also includes that the governments aren't going fund it anyways.  Almost 60 years since going to the moon and still have only words and no money to go back. 
Correct. And anyone here who thinks this will change with the next president really ought to step out of phantasy-land.
Ah... 1969+60=2029
It actually has been since first man on the Moon 47 years. I think you meant almost 50 years. But you are right it has been a long time with plenty of opportunity to fund a new Moon landing program, but for some reason they just can't sustain any funding if they get funded at all.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 05/30/2016 01:43 pm
Just curious, if by some miracle the next administration decided to double funding for SLS/Orion, how would that impact the launch rate and the launch dates of EM-1/EM-2? 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/30/2016 01:52 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.  It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available. 

This is no small task.  Thinking small won't get it done.  It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government. 

In my opinion.

 - Ed Kyle

Jim's assumption aside (we've had thread after thread where he trots out his pet opinion that governments should have no role in manned solar system exploration), I will completely agree with you, Ed.  We will need all of the resources you mention to mount any manned BLEO expeditions.  All of the various commercial launchers and commercial satellite developers will have plenty of work in such efforts, if they want to bid for it.

I keep seeing this as a logical result of how such large projects must be funded in today's funding environment.  You just can't afford to do an Apollo-style program where all of the various elements are funded at the same time, all of which are scheduled to be complete and available for a series of scheduled and funded missions.

You have to develop the pieces serially and not in parallel

No. Instead, you have to stop giving money for this development to the organization which only ever pulled off one Apollo-style development program, and had a string of failures (or worse - "successes" so financially devastating they kept the entire manned program stagnant for 40 years) ever since.

Apollo program was a success in a sense that US did beat Soviets to the Moon.

However, when you look at it from the point of view of developing a healthy space program, it looked decidedly warped.

Think about it.

Driving *five thousand 50-meter long steel piles* into Florida sands *only to build a vehicle assembly building*? That's madness.

Rolling out and moving several miles 363 feet tall LV *vertically*? You got to be kidding me!

I'm not saying Apollo program was flawed. I'm saying it was optimized for a goal which made it unsustainable, and led to cancellation.

Worse, it created a whole generation of NASA people who don't even understand that that's a *wrong* way to develop a space program.

If you stop giving R&D money to NASA and start giving them to competing private companies, you can afford to develop things in parallel.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/30/2016 02:45 pm
I despise this argument to defund SLS.  The U.S. will need this world's-most-capable rocket to get humans to Mars.  It will also need Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Aces and Ariane 6 and whatever other launch vehicle is developed and available. 

This is no small task.  Thinking small won't get it done.  It will take the full might of the aerospace industry, marshaled by government. 

In my opinion.

 - Ed Kyle

While I agree with this all-in approach, two features of your argument are troubling. 

First, SLS is implied as the 'world's most capable rocket.'  FH (with either the 1.7M or 1.9Mlbf thrust booster version) will lift more payload than SLS's first 'block' as shown by your and others' calculations.  SLS will first be flown in 2019 or so, and then have a second experimental flight several years later; FH will fly several times per year from 2017 on, and is capable of flying roughly monthly from either of two sites (three by 2019 or so).  In reusable mode, it could put roughly six SLS payload mass equivalents into LEO per launch site per year -- for the cost of one expendable SLS.  By the twenty-thirties when SLS is finally capable of approximating Saturn V's payload (again by your calculations, it will never reach the advertised 130tonnes) it still is unlikely to be the 'world's most capable rocket.'   I think it will be cancelled long before that due to it's own inadequacies and cost, not the small voice those of us who would choose to defund it...

Second, massive funding for an old technology, expendable rocket that has so little lift capability (it will *eventually* have a big fairing which some carrier rocket will have to incorporate), and even less capability to be mass produced/frequently launched, is standing in the way of putting people on Mars more than aiding it.  The full might of the (traditional) aerospace industry is marshaled and lobbying for it.

I'm afraid 'thinking small' is what NASA, Congress, and many on this forum are currently doing. 
I'd suggest that a reusable 'world's most capable rocket' is the only way we're going to get to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/30/2016 03:49 pm
First, SLS is implied as the 'world's most capable rocket.'  FH (with either the 1.7M or 1.9Mlbf thrust booster version) will lift more payload than SLS's first 'block' as shown by your and others' calculations. 
This is simply incorrect.  SLS Block 1 will boost 24.5 tonnes toward the Moon.  (It could, if needed, lift more than 90 tonnes to low earth orbit (70 tonnes is an artifact of the old SLS Block 0 design), but SLS is never going to LEO so that number is irrelevant.)  Falcon Heavy, even in full-expendable mode, would boost probably about 15 tonnes (plus or minus) toward the Moon.  (Falcon Heavy is also listed at only 54.4 tonnes to LEO in full-expendable mode.)

It would take three fully-expendable Falcon Heavies to match the payload of one SLS Block 1B trans-Mars.  It would take four Falcon Heavies to match one SLS Block 2.  I expect that Falcon Heavy and/or others like it will be needed to support deep-space missions, but the missions will be built around the unparalleled deep space throw-weight offered by SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 05/30/2016 04:01 pm
It would take three fully-expendable Falcon Heavies to match the payload of one SLS Block 1B trans-Mars.  It would take four Falcon Heavies to match one SLS Block 2.  I expect that Falcon Heavy and/or others like it will be needed to support deep-space missions, but the missions will be built around the unparalleled deep space throw-weight offered by SLS. 

An affordable launcher that can lift smaller payloads is more useful than a big one that is too expensive to operate.  In times of tight money, you can scale back to fewer loads, but at least you are making some progress.   With a big rocket either you can afford the full load or you lauch nothing at all.  Money is too tight right now, and I do not see it becoming easier to get out of Congress for elective projects like this.

When building a house, the materials are not delivered all  at once on one huge truck.  Even if you could do it, you would not be ready to use it.  I watched a house near me being built, and due to some scheduling problem the load of pre-assembled roof trusses was delivered before the foundation was poured.  All that unprotected wood sat out in the rain, and was in the way of subsequent deliveries.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/30/2016 07:26 pm
An affordable launcher that can lift smaller payloads is more useful than a big one that is too expensive to operate.  In times of tight money, you can scale back to fewer loads, but at least you are making some progress.   
I disagree with your assertion that SLS is "too expensive to operate".  It is being designed to operate on less than the Shuttle budget, involving far fewer workers.  Shuttle flew for three decades.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/30/2016 08:30 pm
An affordable launcher that can lift smaller payloads is more useful than a big one that is too expensive to operate.  In times of tight money, you can scale back to fewer loads, but at least you are making some progress.   
I disagree with your assertion that SLS is "too expensive to operate".  It is being designed to operate on less than the Shuttle budget, involving far fewer workers.  Shuttle flew for three decades.

 - Ed Kyle

Shuttle was not competing for missions with Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Dasun on 05/30/2016 09:10 pm
Sigh, and SLS is not competing for missions with FH, Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser!!!

SLS was designed, based on NASA requirements,  to support likely Mars mission architectures at relatively low flight rates.  SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX - in fact SpaceX is just another aerospace contractor that can meet NASA needs.  Congress seems to have some firm ideas what SLS is going to do - DSH and Luna - in the next decade, lets us see if the money flows and the next POTUS agrees. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/30/2016 09:30 pm
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.

Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.

By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.

As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Dasun on 05/30/2016 09:34 pm
FH does not compete with SLS - It throws much more upstairs !!!! And I think you will be waiting quite awhile for your "difficult" questions to be asked at the appropriate level for influence to happen!!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IRobot on 05/30/2016 09:50 pm
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.

Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.

By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.

As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing and that the overall GTO performance is lower.

When and if BFR starts flying, SLS is dead.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/30/2016 09:50 pm
Sigh, and SLS is not competing for missions with FH, Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser!!!

I would agree with that.

Quote
SLS was designed, based on NASA requirements...

No, NASA was not involved in defining the SLS.  The Senators that wrote S.3729, and their advisors (which supposedly included former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin), created the specs without NASA involvement or coordination.

Quote
...to support likely Mars mission architectures at relatively low flight rates.

Supposedly, but of course Congress has never funded such efforts.

Quote
...in fact SpaceX is just another aerospace contractor that can meet NASA needs.

Maybe it's semantics, but a contractor builds what you need according to your specs.  A service provider already has a service that you require, even if it needs to be tweaked or modified for your requirements.  Based on that, to me SpaceX would be classified as a service provider.

Quote
Congress seems to have some firm ideas what SLS is going to do...

"Congress" is composed of 100 Senators from 50 different states, and 435 Representatives from 435 political districts around the U.S.

The only certain way to know what Congress "wants" is to see what they vote for.  And so far they have not voted to fund any long-term programs that would require the unique services of the government-owned transportation system known as the SLS.

Maybe you have heard individual members of Congress express interest or desire for tasks the SLS would be suited for, but until they put it into legislation for all of Congress to vote on, it doesn't mean anything.

Quote
...lets us see if the money flows and the next POTUS agrees.

Yep.  Because nothing will be added this year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/30/2016 11:22 pm
First, SLS is implied as the 'world's most capable rocket.'  FH (with either the 1.7M or 1.9Mlbf thrust booster version) will lift more payload than SLS's first 'block' as shown by your and others' calculations. 
This is simply incorrect.  SLS Block 1 will boost 24.5 tonnes toward the Moon.  (It could, if needed, lift more than 90 tonnes to low earth orbit (70 tonnes is an artifact of the old SLS Block 0 design), but SLS is never going to LEO so that number is irrelevant.)  Falcon Heavy, even in full-expendable mode, would boost probably about 15 tonnes (plus or minus) toward the Moon.  (Falcon Heavy is also listed at only 54.4 tonnes to LEO in full-expendable mode.)

It would take three fully-expendable Falcon Heavies to match the payload of one SLS Block 1B trans-Mars.  It would take four Falcon Heavies to match one SLS Block 2.  I expect that Falcon Heavy and/or others like it will be needed to support deep-space missions, but the missions will be built around the unparalleled deep space throw-weight offered by SLS

 - Ed Kyle

The unparalleled throw weight offered by SLS will be paralleled and exceeded by an architecture that includes refueling on orbit.  Problem with SLS is it was created in the Apollo paradigm -- a paradigm which does not work for Mars.  NASA's own plans require dozens of SLS launches to assembly the pieces for a minimal Human mission to Mars.  You simply must launch early and often, which SLS will never do.

54.4 tonnes to LEO is simply not consistent with three 1.7-1.9Mlbf stages -- that's 2/3rds to 3/4ths of Saturn V liftoff thrust -- even a single core (skinny) F9 outperforms Saturn V in PMF (and delivers double the PMF of SLS).  FH outperforms F9 by a significant margin.  Then cross feed and Raptor powered second stage can be added just as Block 2 will eventually get a better second stage and new boosters.

At $3-4B per year, we are (NASA and Congress are) throwing away our opportunity to go to Mars by betting on a minimally capable launch system and unworkable architecture.  We will see which architecture actually gets us there.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/30/2016 11:27 pm
Money can't flow unless the economy improves with jobs that create taxpayers (private enterprise jobs).  I'm afraid NASA is not going to get much of a budget increase in the next few years UNLESS the economy improves.  We are about $20 trillion in debt and it can't be kicked down the road forever.  Something has to give sooner or later.  NASA has been plodding along putting one foot in front of the other, while private companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are making strides in recovery and increased payloads to orbit at LOWER costs.  So has Orbital and now ATK is proposing a new three stage solid to increase payloads at lower costs.  Mars can be done with 20 ton payloads, lots of them, but less than half that many payloads with 40-50 ton payloads from Falcon Heavy and the future Vulcan with ACES.  SLS can only lift about 100 tons to LEO, and they still need an upper stage for deep space probes and operations. 

The cost of SLS can come down IF they launch 3 per year or more, but not at one per year.  There is no vision from the president or a presidential candidate yet.  Without a vision and a goal, SLS will be dead as far as humans going to Mars with only one launch a year. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/30/2016 11:59 pm
54.4 tonnes to LEO is simply not consistent with three 1.7-1.9Mlbf stages -- that's 2/3rds to 3/4ths of Saturn V liftoff thrust -- even a single core (skinny) F9 outperforms Saturn V in PMF (and delivers double the PMF of SLS).  FH outperforms F9 by a significant margin.  Then cross feed and Raptor powered second stage can be added just as Block 2 will eventually get a better second stage and new boosters.
54.4 tonnes is what the manufacturer says Falcon Heavy can do.  If would lift half that, give or take, if the booster and first stages were recovered.  Your Saturn 5 liftoff thrust comparison doesn't add up because Saturn 5 used high energy liquid hydrogen fueled upper stages.  Falcon Heavy uses lower energy hydrocarbon engines on all of its stages.  It has to carry a heavier upper stage, relatively speaking, to make up the difference.  More liftoff thrust, relatively speaking, is needed to lift the extra mass. 

The key number is Falcon Heavy's 13.6 tonnes trans-Mars (full-expendable).  That's impressive, and can be exploited any number of ways, but it isn't 40 tonnes or 46 tonnes (SLS Block 1B Cargo or SLS Block 2).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/31/2016 12:15 am
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.

Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.

By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.

As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing...

...large enough *for what*? Can NASA point us to a funded payload which can't fit into FH's fairing?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 05/31/2016 04:11 am
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.

Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.

By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.

As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"

No, it's not.  When/if SpaceX gets it's BFR operational and agrees to release it for NASA missions, then they can talk.  Until then, the SLS has its own market.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 04:24 am
The key number is Falcon Heavy's 13.6 tonnes trans-Mars (full-expendable).  That's impressive, and can be exploited any number of ways, but it isn't 40 tonnes or 46 tonnes (SLS Block 1B Cargo or SLS Block 2).

We're not going to expand humanity out into space by relying only on direct launch to the destination.  That is Apollo-style thinking, and Apollo only used that method for expediency, not because it was the best way.

Regardless the launchers used, we're going to be assembling spaceships and expeditions in local space before going into deep space.  We've already gained a lot of knowledge how to do this with the 450mT ISS, so we know it's well within our capabilities.  No need to throw away that knowledge and ability...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/31/2016 09:09 am
When and if BFR starts flying, SLS is dead.
Minor nit:
Only if SpaceX makes BFR commercially available.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/31/2016 02:25 pm
54.4 tonnes is what the manufacturer says Falcon Heavy can do.  If would lift half that, give or take, if the booster and first stages were recovered.  Your Saturn 5 liftoff thrust comparison doesn't add up because Saturn 5 used high energy liquid hydrogen fueled upper stages.  Falcon Heavy uses lower energy hydrocarbon engines on all of its stages.  It has to carry a heavier upper stage, relatively speaking, to make up the difference.  More liftoff thrust, relatively speaking, is needed to lift the extra mass. 

The key number is Falcon Heavy's 13.6 tonnes trans-Mars (full-expendable).  That's impressive, and can be exploited any number of ways, but it isn't 40 tonnes or 46 tonnes (SLS Block 1B Cargo or SLS Block 2).

As you implicitly note in mentioning SLS's TMI capabilities, NASA sees fit to break its Mars mission into chunks of less than 50 tonnes.  That begs the question of whether those chunks could be lofted in to LEO by a Falcon Heavy or equivalent and then boosted onward a cis-lunar staging point or directly to Mars after rendezvous and docking with expendable departure stages or perhaps reusable robotic transfer stages.  The latter seems particularly interesting, since the EMC architecture includes reusable transfer stages anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/31/2016 03:18 pm
SLS (and NASA) is not in competition with SpaceX.

Except that SLS *is* in competition with SpaceX.

By law, NASA can't compete with commercially available products.

As soon as FH flies, some difficult questions will be asked, "why do we pay these insane money for SLS?"
For the moment NASA can claim FH does not have a large enough fairing...

...large enough *for what*? Can NASA point us to a funded payload which can't fit into FH's fairing?

Um, let's see, how about Orion? Of course it doesn't need a fairing, but saying that there are no funded payloads that can't fit into a FH fairing is silly. How about projected payloads needed for a Mars mission. That's a more realistic comparison.

Something as large as a lander would need 8.4 m or 10 m fairings. That will take SLS. Other components could be smaller and launched by commercial rockets. SLS will have a very low flight rate. It will take a combination of SLS and commercial rockets to assemble a Mars mission in a reasonable amount of time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 03:35 pm
How about projected payloads needed for a Mars mission. That's a more realistic comparison.

Depends on the architecture you look at.  There are some that assume an HLV will be available, and some that assume existing launchers will be used.

Quote
Something as large as a lander would need 8.4 m or 10 m fairings.

If we're going to Mars in fleets that we assemble in local space, then we might assemble landers in space too.  No need to be limited by the constraints of what can fit on one small HLV.

Quote
It will take a combination of SLS and commercial rockets to assemble a Mars mission in a reasonable amount of time.

It will take a combination of launchers, that we can agree on.  But since NASA is likely decades away from going to Mars on it's own, arguing the dimensions of the lander is premature at best.

And NASA has no idea how to land large landers on Mars anyways.  NASA technology currently maxes out at 899 kg for placing mass on Mars, which is too small for humans.  So it's going to take NASA decades to scale up that capability.

Or, if SpaceX is successful in their Mars endeavors, NASA can just buy a ride to Mars with them.  Regardless, a NASA HLV of any type won't be needed for quite a while to support trips to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/31/2016 03:51 pm
Or, if SpaceX is successful in their Mars endeavors, NASA can just buy a ride to Mars with them.  Regardless, a NASA HLV of any type won't be needed for quite a while to support trips to Mars.

Yes, I think the biggest problem with SLS is that we really don't need it for at least another decade, if ever, because of a lack of funding. They should have followed Obama's plan to do research for five years before deciding on a launch vehicle. Then fund a commercial heavy launch vehicle and see what SpaceX, ULA, etc. could come up with. Unfortunately, that's not what happened and we have spent billions of dollars on SLS. That wouldn't be bad if Congress had funded payloads suitable for SLS.

Maybe LockMart will talk Congress into their latest idea. That would get us to Mars orbit in a little over a decade.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=40324.0
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 05/31/2016 04:09 pm
FH does not compete with SLS - It throws much more upstairs !!!! And I think you will be waiting quite awhile for your "difficult" questions to be asked at the appropriate level for influence to happen!!
The law says that the missions should be designed to accommodate commercial vehicles. So even if SLS does throw slightly more to orbit, that does NOT mean FH doesn't compete with SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 05/31/2016 05:07 pm
The goal post on which SLS will die has continually been moved and talked about ad nauseum.

NASA has already stated they can create the DSH and get humans to Mars under the current budget via Lockheed's Mars Base Camp or something similar to it.  Its the lander that doesn't fit into existing or foreseeable budget.

SLS does and will have payloads.  Getting to Mars is going to take SLS and commercial launchers and the whole industry pulling in the same direction.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2016 05:16 pm
The following shows what a typical NASA program to develop hardware for a Mars mission would look like.

Authorization/Appropriations                   Oct-17
Contract for Authorization Study start           Mar-18
Architecture selected                                   Mar-19
Contract for Design and Development start   Sep-19
PDR                                                           Sep-21
CDR                                                           Sep-24
Hardware build complete                           Sep-29
Launch Earliest Mars Synod                   Feb-31

This is how slow NASA really is. The biggest problem is in program startup. It would take 3 years from now just to get a contractor on contract to start the design work.

SLS would not be used for any payloads like this until the 2030's just like NASA has been stating all along.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 05/31/2016 05:39 pm
The following shows what a typical NASA program to develop hardware for a Mars mission would look like.

Authorization/Appropriations                   Oct-17
Contract for Authorization Study start           Mar-18
Architecture selected                                   Mar-19
Contract for Design and Development start   Sep-19
PDR                                                           Sep-21
CDR                                                           Sep-24
Hardware build complete                           Sep-29
Launch Earliest Mars Synod                   Feb-31

This is how slow NASA really is. The biggest problem is in program startup. It would take 3 years from now just to get a contractor on contract to start the design work.

SLS would not be used for any payloads like this until the 2030's just like NASA has been stating all along.

NASA can't do Apollo like programs where all the design and production is done in parallel.  From 2018 to 2028 SLS/Orion will be in Cislunar space as its always been planned.  Saying SLS has nothing to do for the next 10 years is inaccurate.  Especially if ARM is turned into a cislunar outpost SLS/Orion will have more than enough to do.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2016 06:26 pm
The following shows what a typical NASA program to develop hardware for a Mars mission would look like.

Authorization/Appropriations                   Oct-17
Contract for Authorization Study start           Mar-18
Architecture selected                                   Mar-19
Contract for Design and Development start   Sep-19
PDR                                                           Sep-21
CDR                                                           Sep-24
Hardware build complete                           Sep-29
Launch Earliest Mars Synod                   Feb-31

This is how slow NASA really is. The biggest problem is in program startup. It would take 3 years from now just to get a contractor on contract to start the design work.

SLS would not be used for any payloads like this until the 2030's just like NASA has been stating all along.

NASA can't do Apollo like programs where all the design and production is done in parallel.  From 2018 to 2028 SLS/Orion will be in Cislunar space as its always been planned.  Saying SLS has nothing to do for the next 10 years is inaccurate.  Especially if ARM is turned into a cislunar outpost SLS/Orion will have more than enough to do.
The discussion was about Mars payloads. SLS does have some in the work payloads besides Orion and that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.

Added: I see the DSH program launching a DSH NET Dec 2023. The program length is shorter than for a Mars program because of less complexity and that the architecture studies have been completed and NASA is moving on to a DDT&E contractor selection that would probably begin in FY2017. DSH is already 3 years ahead of any other "new" SLS payload program. Then there is the 2 Europa probes missions which are well on their way into the home stretch. So there are 3 payloads for 2020's that is not an Orion. EM-2 is NET 2022. But engine build rates and engine availability are such that flights would only be possible for 2023 (1st Europa), 2024 DSH/Orion, 2026 second Europa, 2027 another Orion, and 2029 a possible another DSH/Orion. And that is probably pushing the SLS hardware availabilities. 6 flights for all of the 2020's if we are lucky.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 05/31/2016 06:35 pm
that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.

DSH is just a study, it is not an approved project.  The only payloads that are real for SLS at this moment are Orion based and are EM-1 and ARRM.  Europa is the next closest.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2016 06:50 pm
that is DSH which hopefully would be mid 2020's.

DSH is just a study, it is not an approved project.  The only payloads that are real for SLS at this moment are Orion based and are EM-1 and ARRM.  Europa is the next closest.
As I have added above they are finishing up funded architecture studies. My notes as you have pointed out are optimistic. There is more funding in the 2017 budget for DSH, hopefuly a development start. But even a 1 year delay is not a bad thing in that SLS hardware availability for launching a DSH may not exist until 2025 anyway. The other item is funding in 2017 for ARRM is 0. As far the Europa missions they are having funding problems of their own and may be delayed as well.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/31/2016 09:37 pm
The goal post on which SLS will die has continually been moved and talked about ad nauseum.

Yep.  Mainly because we thought Congress would finally get around to talking about what the SLS was supposed to be used for, which would involve discovering how much money using the SLS would require.  That never happened, since Congress as a whole is just not interested in discussing uses for the SLS.  So Plan B is that the next President will create a review of the program, which will push for some sort of decision to be made, one way other the other.

Quote
NASA has already stated they can create the DSH and get humans to Mars under the current budget via Lockheed's Mars Base Camp or something similar to it.  Its the lander that doesn't fit into existing or foreseeable budget.

There has been testimony in front of Congress from two very respected people, Thomas Young (former VP of Lockheed Martin) and Steven Squyres (Principle Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rover mission), in which Young was asked how long it would take NASA to put a human on Mars with it's current budget, and Young said "Never."  Squyres agreed.

And I have no doubt that NASA can do anything asked of it, IF it is given enough money.  But our nation's politicians haven't asked NASA to go to Mars yet, nor provided the required money.  Yet.

Quote
SLS does and will have payloads.

The year the Shuttle first launched (1981), there was a backlog of over 40 payloads waiting to fly on it.  For that point in history, that certainly showed that it's services were needed.

In comparison, outside of test flights, the SLS manifest is pretty bare.  That's not a good sign.

Quote
Getting to Mars is going to take SLS and commercial launchers and the whole industry pulling in the same direction.

All of which has to come out of NASA's budget, since we're talking about a government-only initiative.  That will require a heck of a budget boost.  Just sayin'...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 05/31/2016 11:23 pm
Points well taken.

When I refer to current budget, I'm referencing the entire HSF budget which is around $9 billion per year.

With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 06/01/2016 03:33 am
With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.

If they're buying a ride from SpaceX, then yea. If you expect it to be via SLS/Orion, I wouldn't bet anything of value on that horse.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/01/2016 05:25 am
With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.

If they're buying a ride from SpaceX, then yea. If you expect it to be via SLS/Orion, I wouldn't bet anything of value on that horse.

We can agree to disagree  ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/11/2016 05:55 pm
$9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.
9B a year and the first manned landing happens when? 2034? And how many billions will they spend from now till 2024?

You're talking about 100+ billion to be spent on this program over 18 years before a manned landing, for the capability to land maybe 100 tonnes of payload per synod. With hardware that isn't even on the drawing board yet.

Those are great ambitions, but I have no faith in them. For that kind of money SpaceX could land 10 times the payload annually, starting in 3 years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/11/2016 06:16 pm
Points well taken.

When I refer to current budget, I'm referencing the entire HSF budget which is around $9 billion per year.

With $9billion per year, particularly after 2024 when ISS comes down, NASA can get to Mars.

According to NASA, the SLS has to launch no-less-than once every 12 months in order to have a safe launch cadence.  So that means that within NASA's budget they have to support:

- Building Orion systems for HSF training flights

- Science missions that make use of the SLS (i.e. the Europa mission)

- Development and testing of HSF mission elements like the DSH Hab

- Production of SLS rockets to support flights every year

- Support costs for ongoing missions that are launched via SLS

I just don't see that fitting into NASA's current budget profile, especially the yearly SLS flights.  Not only that, the amount of time it takes to build SLS-sized science payloads and HSF systems does not lend itself to popping out at yearly intervals - some will take a decade or more to get ready, as the history of the simple Orion spacecraft shows (i.e. 18 years).

And we are still missing an explicit political goal for our HSF efforts beyond LEO, which makes long-term efforts less likely to succeed.

Just sayin'...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 06/11/2016 06:17 pm
With hardware that isn't even on the drawing board yet.

Those are great ambitions, but I have no faith in them. For that kind of money SpaceX could land 10 times the payload annually, starting in 3 years.

With all due respect, dare I say some of the necessary "hardware" is being flight tested on ISS as we type...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 06/11/2016 06:39 pm
I propose that we ban the word "SpaceX", and any message using that word or any description of any existing or proposed system proposed by that company, from this thread, which is titled "SLS General Discussion".   There are about 10,000 other threads for SpaceX, and multiple forum subsections.  There is only one SLS section, and it is constantly overrun by messages claiming that SpaceX can do these NASA missions for one-tenth the price in one-third the time, etc..  These claims seem widely optimistic to anyone who has been immersed in this business for any length of time.  But who knows, maybe they'll magically turn out to be true!  Either way, discussion of them does not belong here.  Please.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 06/11/2016 07:12 pm
Once 5 Seg, Core and EUS are out of development, testing and into production...and once 39B, MLT, CT and VAB are completed along with GSDO software, updated LCC...assuming 1 (maybe 2) flights a year, what could we expect the minimum cost per flight to be? In total, will it be 300, 600, 800 Million? What could we realistically expect a line item of one flight, either Cargo or Orion to cost over time? (not including Orion or cargo, fairing.)

Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?

IMO, the greatest potential for this beast is throw weight of BEO science and colonization infrastructure, not people.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/11/2016 07:31 pm
Discussion of the SLS budget doesn't belong in the SpaceX threads (although that happens too). And why shouldn't SLS general discussion include comparison to it's competitors? Don't tell me that there are no competitors. SLS is a transport service. It doesn't have any "missions", other than to deliver a payload. That's not NASA's forte, and there are thousands of other things they are awesome at that they should be spending the money on. And that's not a dig at NASA, but at Congress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 06/11/2016 09:13 pm
And why shouldn't SLS general discussion include comparison to it's competitors?
Because we have other forums to discuss its competitors and Congress. Moderators have been pretty clear on this point in the past.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/11/2016 11:24 pm
Once 5 Seg, Core and EUS are out of development, testing and into production...and once 39B, MLT, CT and VAB are completed along with GSDO software, updated LCC...assuming 1 (maybe 2) flights a year, what could we expect the minimum cost per flight to be? In total, will it be 300, 600, 800 Million? What could we realistically expect a line item of one flight, either Cargo or Orion to cost over time? (not including Orion or cargo, fairing.)

Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?

To my knowledge, the closest we've seen to actual cost estimates are the numbers in the ESD budget scenarios from 2011 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592).  They seem to suggest a cost of about $3 billion for one Block 2* SLS launch annually, including ground systems and estimated inflation to FY 2025.  Launching one Block 1 and one Block 2 appeared to cost about $3.6 billion.  SLS's costs do not seem set to go down when it moves from development to operation.  NASA as bandied about a number of $500 million per launch:  it would seem that could only be the marginal cost of an additional annual launch, not the total annual cost per launch.



* Bear in mind that the blocks were not then defined precisely as we know them now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/12/2016 03:15 am
Once 5 Seg, Core and EUS are out of development, testing and into production...and once 39B, MLT, CT and VAB are completed along with GSDO software, updated LCC...assuming 1 (maybe 2) flights a year, what could we expect the minimum cost per flight to be? In total, will it be 300, 600, 800 Million? What could we realistically expect a line item of one flight, either Cargo or Orion to cost over time? (not including Orion or cargo, fairing.)

Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?

To my knowledge, the closest we've seen to actual cost estimates are the numbers in the ESD budget scenarios from 2011 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592).  They seem to suggest a cost of about $3 billion for one Block 2* SLS launch annually, including ground systems and estimated inflation to FY 2025.  Launching one Block 1 and one Block 2 appeared to cost about $3.6 billion.  SLS's costs do not seem set to go down when it moves from development to operation.  NASA as bandied about a number of $500 million per launch:  it would seem that could only be the marginal cost of an additional annual launch, not the total annual cost per launch.



* Bear in mind that the blocks were not then defined precisely as we know them now.

Lets say for instance, that your figure of $3.6 billion for 2 sls launches is correct in 2025.

$3.6 billion for SLS
$1 billion for Orion
$3.4 billion for DSH/MTV (BA330/Cygnus, ELCS, etc)
$1 billion commercial (spacex, Boeing, etc)

With no ISS, NASA's budget will work imo
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MikeAtkinson on 06/12/2016 06:02 am
Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/12/2016 03:14 pm
Could we get this system to, say...250 Million per launch?

No, that would be impossible.

Consider that back when the Shuttle was flying prior to the Columbia accident, and NASA was assuming a robust flight schedule, NASA had negotiated contracts for volume production of the External Tank (ET) and the Solid Rocket Motors (SRM).  At that point in time a Shuttle flight set of ET & SRM's cost $242M.

The SLS uses larger SRM's, and the 1st stage body of the SLS is far larger and more complex than the Shuttle ET.  So just from that standpoint, based on the low flight rate currently envisioned, the SLS could never cost only $250M per launch.

Plus the "SLS" includes the upper stage, since the job of the SLS is to transport it's payload to it's ultimate destination, so upper stage costs have to be added too.

Another cost comparison is ULA's Delta IV Heavy, which is in volume production due to it being composed of three Delta IV CBC's (and Delta IV-M is in production).  The cost to the U.S. Government is somewhere north of $500M these days, which though that includes some payloads specific considerations, still provides a rough order of magnitude comparison - and the Delta IV Heavy is far smaller than the SLS.

Quote
IMO, the greatest potential for this beast is throw weight of BEO science and colonization infrastructure, not people.

Science missions are the least defensible uses for the SLS, since "when we need science" is open to interpretation - all the way from "now" to "later".  And once one or more of the U.S. launch providers offers some version of multi-launch support, the U.S. Government won't be able to compete against the private sector for those launches.

Only Human Space Flight (HSF) using NASA specific in-space elements justify the need for the SLS.  And then only if there is enough of it over the long term.  We'll see if Congress wants to fund that type of stuff at this moment in history...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/13/2016 06:46 pm
Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.

NASA won't be giving anything up, as there is no international support past 2024 to keep ISS going making your point moot.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 06/13/2016 07:09 pm
Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.

NASA won't be giving anything up, as there is no international support past 2024 to keep ISS going making your point moot.
NASA has repeatedly said it wants LEO research capability beyond 2024.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/13/2016 07:25 pm
Giving up a large and still expanding LEO presence for the occasional BEO mission is not a good trade in my opinion.

NASA won't be giving anything up, as there is no international support past 2024 to keep ISS going making your point moot.
NASA has repeatedly said it wants LEO research capability beyond 2024.

Not via ISS.  My whole point is, once ISS comes down NASA's budget can make Mars missions work.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 06/13/2016 07:29 pm
The vehicle doesn't matter. The mission matters. Congress has forgotten that. Give NASA a mission and allow them to work it. Might be SLS, might be something else. But whatever mission is selected, NASA needs to be funded enough to accomplish the mission. IMHO NASA does not have enough funding to do every task that has been mandated by Congress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 06/13/2016 07:41 pm

Thanks AnalogMan.  For anyone:  will they be able to use this adapter between the EUS and 5 meter payloads (ostensibly Orion+SM) when that variant flies?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 06/13/2016 08:01 pm

Thanks AnalogMan.  For anyone:  will they be able to use this adapter between the EUS and 5 meter payloads (ostensibly Orion+SM) when that variant flies?

No. This adapter will be used only one time, for the SLS flight with the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage. A shorter "Universal Stage Adapter" will be made for the EUS / Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 06/28/2016 01:10 am
We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.
Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK?  They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR.  The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/28/2016 01:36 am
We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.
Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK?  They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR.  The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.


They were tweeting various photos, not sure about that one.

https://twitter.com/OrbitalATK
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Bubbinski on 06/29/2016 01:18 am
We were allowed to take pics in the final assembly building. We all got excited when we heard that and took some pics. We weren't allowed to take pics anywhere else on our tour. That pic was mine, I only wish I'd thought to bring my Coolpix in instead of my iPad camera which I used.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/29/2016 09:32 pm
We were allowed to take pics in the final assembly building. We all got excited when we heard that and took some pics. We weren't allowed to take pics anywhere else on our tour. That pic was mine, I only wish I'd thought to bring my Coolpix in instead of my iPad camera which I used.

Great pic Bubbinski. It is so good to see actual flight hardware coming down the pipe. Can't wait to see this bird fly.  :D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 07/08/2016 01:55 pm
We got to see one of the center segments for EM-1 already made at the NASA Social today. Don't know if it's for left or right hand booster. Again this is SLS flight hardware, the 1st segment that came through the final assembly building.
Nice -- was this picture via Orbital ATK?  They told us no pictures on our tour, but we could request photo subjects that would then get a safety check for things like ITAR.  The only other detail I heard when we went through Final Assembly was that it was a forward-center segment.
Orbital ATK posted images that they captured during the media tour on Flickr; there are a couple of images of the EM-1 segment in the album:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/orbital-atk/sets/72157670004069052
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: WindyCity on 07/23/2016 12:52 am
Bob Zimmerman (aerospace historian and award-winning author of Leaving Earth: Space Stations, Rival Superpowers, and the Quest for Interplanetary Travel) has prepared a study for the think tank Center for A New American Security to be released in August that takes a critical look at NASA's two-pronged strategy for human space flight involving SLS/Orion and commercial space. In a fascinating two-hour Space Show interview, he previews many of his conclusions. Go to http://www.thespaceshow.com/show/28-jun-2016/broadcast-2728-bob-zimmerman to listen to the interview.

In brief, he takes a highly negative view of the SLS/Orion program because of its high costs, legacy architecture, long R&D timeline, low launch cadence, and mission objectives. Listening to the interview was well worth my time. He praises the work being done by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 07/23/2016 09:30 pm
In brief, he takes a highly negative view of the SLS/Orion program because of its high costs, legacy architecture, long R&D timeline, low launch cadence, and mission objectives. Listening to the interview was well worth my time. He praises the work being done by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace.

He makes his arguments in the first 5 minutes, the rest is not particularly interesting. IMO he puts to much emphasis on "commercial is so much more awesome" instead of the fact that SLS/Orion has nowhere to fly to.

I was recently thinking about how to make SLS into an effective LEO launcher, since SEP will eat away the benefit of SLS's high BEO capacity. The problem is that in such a case even less SLS launches will be needed (EMC can already be done with 2 SLS per year without using SEP for LEO to LDRO).

If Orbital/ATK gets its all-solid rocket maybe the monster can be slayed?

Sorry if OT.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chalmer on 08/03/2016 08:42 pm
So I have been wondering for awhile now about the RS-25 testing.

I mean what are they testing? Shouldn't the RS-25 be very well understood with all that test and flight history from shuttle?

As best as I can surmise from the #Journeytomars PR press releases there is an upgraded controller and it will use 109% thrust and not 104.5% thrust as under shuttle.

Is that it?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 08/03/2016 09:04 pm
So I have been wondering for awhile now about the RS-25 testing.

I mean what are they testing? Shouldn't the RS-25 be very well understood with all that test and flight history from shuttle?

As best as I can surmise from the #Journeytomars PR press releases there is an upgraded controller and it will use 109% thrust and not 104.5% thrust as under shuttle.

Is that it?

From NASA's website;

Quote
The July 29 test and four future scheduled firings in the current series are focused on the new engine controller and higher operating parameters. While RS-25 engines are among the most tested – and proven – in the world, they have been modernized for SLS. The developmental tests are designed to show they will meet the new parameters of the rocket. During the firings, the test team will put the engine through a variety of adaptations, starting it at different temperatures and pressures, for instance. The team also will watch closely to ensure the new engine controller functions as needed. In addition to the existing RS-25 engines, NASA has contracted with Aerojet Rocketdyne to build additional engines for use on SLS missions. All flight testing for SLS take place at Stennis, as will the actual core stage testing for the first integrated mission of SLS and NASA’s Orion spacecraft, Exploration Mission-1. The next scheduled RS-25 developmental test at Stennis is set for Aug. 18.

Testing is always a good thing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 08/03/2016 09:25 pm
In brief, he takes a highly negative view of the SLS/Orion program because of its high costs, legacy architecture, long R&D timeline, low launch cadence, and mission objectives. Listening to the interview was well worth my time. He praises the work being done by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Bigelow Aerospace.

He makes his arguments in the first 5 minutes, the rest is not particularly interesting. IMO he puts to much emphasis on "commercial is so much more awesome" instead of the fact that SLS/Orion has nowhere to fly to.

I was recently thinking about how to make SLS into an effective LEO launcher, since SEP will eat away the benefit of SLS's high BEO capacity. The problem is that in such a case even less SLS launches will be needed (EMC can already be done with 2 SLS per year without using SEP for LEO to LDRO).

If Orbital/ATK gets its all-solid rocket maybe the monster can be slayed?

Sorry if OT.

I don't see the SLS as a monster, but the Orion atop it could be an annoying goblin.

The SLS itself was produced as the best compromise available based on the Augustine Commission's demands, as best they could be interpreted at the time.  So I find it a bad comedy when people complain about it now.  The space shuttle's reuseability was seen as an expensive liability, so it was cut out; and ironically people nowadays complain it's not reusable like the Falcon 9 first stage.  They thought basing it off mainly shuttle components would save the workforce, whereas now they complain it's old tech.  For crying out loud people!

I'd say slay the Orion, keep the SLS, and use commercial flights.  I could see the SLS easily flying an empty Mars or Lunar lander into LEO and whatever equipment, and then a smaller commercial launcher deliver the humans separately.  That would be the best compromise to me.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/03/2016 09:30 pm
Augustine did not demand an SLS-sized heavy lifter.  It offered the possibility of using a rocket with a capacity of 50-ish tonnes to LEO, possibly commercially managed.

In any event, regardless of launch vehicle, Augustine said that NASA needed an extra $3 billion per year (which would be more now) if it were to do much of anything.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 08/03/2016 10:42 pm
It's be a while since reading the report, but memory says there was a chart that said the only mores expensive (as a launch system) then Ares I/Orion was anything else/Orion (which is the result we have exists now).

Has memory skewed that or was that a basic observation in the report?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/06/2016 08:26 am
We got a FISO presentation titled "NASA's Space Launch System: Powering the Journey to Mars" by Chris Saunders (AJ), Mike Fuller (Orb-ATK), & Bob DaLee (Boeing) on August 3. Links to the audio & slide presentations below.

Slides link (http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16.pdf)

Audio link (http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee.mp3)


Slide of the various SLS variants and slide of various launch vehicles with  performance charts to various orbits from the slide presentations.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 08/06/2016 03:39 pm
Thank you for the links.  I like seeing EM-2 at 2021  ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/06/2016 04:09 pm
An excellently done presentation. The one item conspicuously missing is costs. If you add the $/mt for the different orbits for each vehicle the story changes significantly as to the advantages and disadvantages for the LVs depicted.

But otherwise the relative capabilities chart is an excellent reference item.

Added:
Estimate of what the cost data would look like.
Cost/flt ($M)LEO GEO Lunar Mars
VehiclePayload (mt)Cost/mt ($M)Payload (mt)Cost/mt ($M)Payload (mt)Cost/mt ($M)Payload (mt)Cost/mt ($M)
Atlas V$22418.8$11.98.9$25.28.9$25.26$37.3
F9$6222.8$2.78.3$7.58.3$7.54.02$15.4
DIVH$45028.37$15.913.81$32.613.81$32.610$45
FH$13054.4$2.422.2$5.919.8$6.613.6$9.6
SLS 1B$1000105$9.542.5$23.538$26.330$33.3
SLS 2B$800130$6.262$12.946$17.442.5$18.8
Vulcan$18033$5.515.6$11.515.6$11.510.5$17.1
Vulcan Distributed Launch$340$33$10.333$10.333$10.3

I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.

Edit #2: I decided to add Vulcan with ACES to the table just to see where it lies in the comparisons on $M/mt.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/06/2016 09:14 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/06/2016 09:35 pm
...
I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.
That is wishful thinking. Expect the SLS 2B to be more expensive than the SLS 1B, IMO. Also to get to the SLS 2B you need to restart RS-25 production and developed some flavor of advance booster. The advance booster is iffy considering the past with the STS's booster history.

And your table shows how noncompetitive the SLS is for assembling vehicle stacks in LEO in price. Of course the SLS will have a bigger payload fairing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/06/2016 09:54 pm
...
I used a lower per flt cost for SLS 2B in the hope that the cost per flt would go down with more use.
That is wishful thinking. Expect the SLS 2B to be more expensive than the SLS 1B, IMO. Also to get to the SLS 2B you need to restart RS-25 production and developed some flavor of advance booster. The advance booster is iffy considering the past with the STS's booster history.

And your table shows how noncompetitive the SLS is for assembling vehicle stacks in LEO in price. Of course the SLS will have a bigger payload fairing.
You are correct in that historically NASA costs have increased as the LV capability was expanded. But there is always hope that they would also do cost reduction work at the same time as creating a new version.

In the end LV selection could be just payload faring volume, cost being a secondary consideration. Bulky items SLS. Compact items commercial, such as propellant stages.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/06/2016 09:54 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/06/2016 09:57 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

 :)
Live test on a commercial launcher with an adapter. After all the Atlas V got that 7.2 meter fairing option.
 :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/06/2016 11:42 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

 :)
Live test on a commercial launcher with an adapter. After all the Atlas V got that 7.2 meter fairing option.
 :)

In which case I hope the dummy payload comes with telemetry so the engineers any problems the fairing has opening.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 08/07/2016 02:18 am

I guess its once again time for my quarterly reminder that should SLS fly, or fly more than a couple-four times, the ultimate variation we'll see is 1B.  Having said that, I fully support SLS, and I bet the refined 1B will throw N. of 111T.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/07/2016 03:38 am
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?
(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/68572158.jpg)

"You don't understand the power of the dark ... wait ... cost plus prime force ..." ;)

And that one won't come cheap. Also, the Skylab one didn't "fair" so well...

add:
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/gpn-2000-001462.jpg)
and
(https://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/0101587.jpg)

6.6m x 17.1m
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/07/2016 04:02 am
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Oh, I know Plum Brook well. I've been inside it before. But even testing the 5m commercial fairings is cramped, let alone a much taller and wider 10m fairing. I'd argue there isn't enough room for a 10m by 30m fairing to be fully tested inside the space, since it needs room to actually separate, with all the mechanisms involved.

Heck, the doors are only 15m square. I don't see it realistically and fully being tested at Plum Brook, and I've never seen this realistically addressed.

10m fairings are a nightmare and likely to cost a fortune. How do you even transport them? Build them? Test them?

8.4m fairing even is a stretch (though isn't as absurd as 10m). My bet is SLS will fly only with Orion or the 5m fairing before being cancelled.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2016 06:15 am
Fiso podcast on SLS.

http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Sanders-Fuller-DaLee_8-3-16/

Costs aside there is lot to be said for being able to deliver 45t and 10m dia payloads direct to Mars , plus greatly reduce travel time for outer solar system robotic missions.

Well of course if you ignore costs every capability looks great.  Unfortunately there IS a cost associated with each capability, and that will influence whether that capability is ever used.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/07/2016 08:41 am

I guess its once again time for my quarterly reminder that should SLS fly, or fly more than a couple-four times, the ultimate variation we'll see is 1B.  Having said that, I fully support SLS, and I bet the refined 1B will throw N. of 111T.
@Scotty disagree with you on the Clarification on SLS Block 1B Capabilities thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39526.msg1488720#msg1488720) on the 111T+ guess. Presuming you meant metric tons.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 08/07/2016 01:46 pm
I'd say slay the Orion, keep the SLS, and use commercial flights.  I could see the SLS easily flying an empty Mars or Lunar lander into LEO and whatever equipment, and then a smaller commercial launcher deliver the humans separately.  That would be the best compromise to me.

Orion won't come with the same fixed costs as SLS. Sure, given Orion's development cost I would say adding a hab/prop module to a commercial crew vehicle would have been the cheaper solution (or even a lunar taxi with propulsive capture).

With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 08/07/2016 02:05 pm
If they actually use the SLS on this 'Journey to Mars' and launch a load of new robot spacecraft to the outer solar system on high-speed trajectories, then brilliant.

The problem is that nobody believes that will happen. There has been little, if any interest in putting something on top of this rocket, as if everyone knows what is going to happen.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/07/2016 02:07 pm
With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.

As opposed (adjusting to match projected timeframe dollars for SLS) to flying eight FH's for $2bn per year?  Or four Delta IV's?  Or three Vulcans?

And how in the world do you figure that FH comes "for free"?!  FH right now is being guesstimated at a cost per launch between $120 million and $250 million, depending on who you listen to.  Delta IV is already around a half billion per launch, Atlas V at around a quarter to a third of a billion, and I don't know anyone who is willing to bet that Vulcan will cost less than either of the other two ULA offerings available at present.

This is, pardon me for saying so, one of the stupidest examples of going way overboard on "SLS will cost so much, it's completely absurd!"  By trying to state that FH is "for free," you completely invalidate any argument you may have.

Face it -- there ain't no big launchers that aren't relatively expensive right now.  The difference between SpaceX and other providers is simply a matter of degree, at the moment.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 08/07/2016 02:37 pm
With SLS you're looking at >$2bn per year for 2 launches. Starting at the end of the next decade. Until it flies at that rate it is going to cost another ~$20bn. All that while FH comes "for free" and SEP costs a fraction and is needed anyway.

As opposed (adjusting to match projected timeframe dollars for SLS) to flying eight FH's for $2bn per year?  Or four Delta IV's?  Or three Vulcans?

And how in the world do you figure that FH comes "for free"?!  FH right now is being guesstimated at a cost per launch between $120 million and $250 million, depending on who you listen to.  Delta IV is already around a half billion per launch, Atlas V at around a quarter to a third of a billion, and I don't know anyone who is willing to bet that Vulcan will cost less than either of the other two ULA offerings available at present.

This is, pardon me for saying so, one of the stupidest examples of going way overboard on "SLS will cost so much, it's completely absurd!"  By trying to state that FH is "for free," you completely invalidate any argument you may have.

Face it -- there ain't no big launchers that aren't relatively expensive right now.  The difference between SpaceX and other providers is simply a matter of degree, at the moment.

"For free" in this context means NASA doesn't have to pay for development or all the fixed cost. It is a rocket that will fly no matter what. I think FH plus SEP could approximately half the price per kg to cis-lunar space compared to SLS (assuming $200m for FH). Moreover it could save billions of development cost.

That said, I am not a die-hard SLS opponent. Congress wants to pay for it, so be it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/07/2016 03:23 pm
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.

Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.

Nineteen-fifty-five.  Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything.  At all.

If there was a funded mission that required an F-1 engine in 1955, I'd love to see the funding appropriation for it.

And, to be honest, I don't believe it would have been possible to seek funding for Apollo if there was not an F-1 class engine already under development.  If the U.S. had been forced to try and design Apollo without the F-1 having been under development for five years already, I don't think anyone would have bitten the bullet and committed to it.  One of the reasons Apollo was considered within the realm of possibility in 1961 was the fact that the F-1 engine was scheduled to become available by 1965 or so.

Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go.  And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276.  All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles. 

While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions.  They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.

In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.  And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development.  So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.

When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's).  Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969.  NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan.  That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets).  Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.

Now, you can complain that the DRA doesn't realistically define needs for new start funding on various vehicles and preliminary missions.  But that's a far different discussion than just continuing to insist SLS must die because there are no funded missions.

Rant mode off... ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/07/2016 05:19 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

At the Space Power Facility in Plum Brook Station, Ohio. The largest vacuum chamber there is 30 meters in diameter and 37 meters tall.
Oh, I know Plum Brook well. I've been inside it before. But even testing the 5m commercial fairings is cramped, let alone a much taller and wider 10m fairing. I'd argue there isn't enough room for a 10m by 30m fairing to be fully tested inside the space, since it needs room to actually separate, with all the mechanisms involved.

Heck, the doors are only 15m square. I don't see it realistically and fully being tested at Plum Brook, and I've never seen this realistically addressed.

10m fairings are a nightmare and likely to cost a fortune. How do you even transport them? Build them? Test them?

8.4m fairing even is a stretch (though isn't as absurd as 10m). My bet is SLS will fly only with Orion or the 5m fairing before being cancelled.

A 10m fairing can be moved by building it in three 120º parts. Assemble inside the vacuum test chamber.

How to environmentally test a payload that needs a 10m fairing is a different but related problem. New extra large test chamber?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2016 08:16 pm
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.

Not only funded, but no defined long-term need.  And by that I mean our political leadership has agreed to a goal that requires so much mass moved to space that a sustained need for an HLV is merited, and existing commercial capabilities cannot satisfy the goal.  None of that thinking has taken place or been agreed to.

Quote
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

No, the U.S. Government does not engage in that type of $B speculation without at least some sort of indication of demand, regardless how accurate or well done the study is.  And moving mass to space is now a mature industry, with the private sector here in the U.S. the master of this capability, not the U.S. Government.

So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability?  If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.

Quote
Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.

Nineteen-fifty-five.  Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything.  At all.

From Wikipedia about the F-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1):

"The F-1 was originally developed by Rocketdyne to meet a 1955 U.S. Air Force requirement for a very large rocket engine."

So there was need.  And just to be clear, the military spends money differently than the civilian side of the government, so comparing the SLS to military rocket is apples-to-daisies.

Quote
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.

Well of course, they were created from the same source - the cancelled Constellation program.  Which still doesn't address what they are to used for, especially since the Orion is limited to going to the Moon for 21 day missions - and that is not a critical path requirement for going to Mars (i.e. the supposed prime destination NASA is focused on).

Quote
And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development.  So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.

A Deep Space Habitat does not require an HLV.

And bottom line, what many people see is that "stuff" is being built to justify the SLS, not to address critical path items that are keeping us from getting to Mars (or whatever is NASA's top priority).

And if you have a capability that has to launch every 12 months (i.e. NASA's minimum safe flight cadence), then that means 70-130mT of "stuff" has to be in the funding pipeline years in advance.  It take years, and sometimes over a decade, for NASA to build space "stuff", and here we are just 6 years away from the SLS being operational - and there is a lack of "stuff" in the funding pipeline.

If the SLS truly was needed at this moment in history, you'd think we'd see more evidence of that need.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/07/2016 08:45 pm

So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability?  If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.
Like a manned space program?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/07/2016 11:24 pm

So why does Congress want NASA to create a U.S. Government capability?  If there is a real need, it should be easy to quantify.
Like a manned space program?

We have that today without an HLV.

There are NASA studies that show we could, if needed, go to Mars without an HLV - and studies that say an HLV would be an asset.

The deciding factor will be what the next President and Congress envision for NASA...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/08/2016 12:28 am
Rebuttal to your rant
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.

Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.
Before we knew what AF/country actually needed, which took a decade to resolve. We call this "risk reduction".

And the AF is still doing it. Look at recent co-investment in propulsion. Found a better, capital efficient way to do it. Far from immune to political attack.

Quote
Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go.  And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276.  All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles. 

Actually, if you read the view of John Logston, the American public did not support it, they endured it, as a means to respond to the perceived Soviet threat.

And the American public was not polarized but out of concern for threat, would unify even on things they were skeptical of, while still contending vigorously on things "in bounds". When Goldwater went "out of bounds", he got whacked for it, out of the need to have bounds so we'd not descend into chaos that a fast moving enemy might take advantage of. Unique times.

Quote
While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions.  They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.

Nope, not the same. "All up" testing ala George Mueller was a means to "catch up" with an "overwhelm and devastate" approach to belling a concern. Much more parallel development w/multiple primes. Clear mission focus, and overly singular goal with intended detachment (leave nothing in place for follow on).

There was a beginning, middle, and end. Period.

Quote
In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.  And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development.  So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.

NASA has rightly objected to Congress building the wrong rocket. Because of lack of commitment to goal and regular funding for that goal. Due to the substantial lag time incurred by government rules  of operation from instigation to realization, which is in the order of DECADES in some cases, annual variation reduces efficiency, thus depressing an already depressed cycle of achievement. Not the proper way to use the tool of NASA.

Quote
When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's).  Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969.  NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan.  That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets).  Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.

Read Logston. Not the same. Read his books and talk to him or me about it.

Here's a better view of what the issue is. Voters have been "educated" to believe that polarization is good, and that a "pure" view of things should dominate, and that letting other things (like space exploration) slide or be misappropriated is acceptable. That will be hard to change, as it is a 40 year trend that shows no change in sight.

If you want to run things back to the Apollo days, it's not the funding its the voter. You have to get from them, the same expectation that allowed Apollo to function as I and Logsdon have indicated.

If you were to do that, very little would need to be added to go forward, mostly any choice would work.

If you don't do that, absolutely no choice will make any difference.

In either case, NASA is caught in the middle and does the best it can do, while patiently explaining why things aren't working as well as they could.

add:

Read this (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/) about the problem mentioned above.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/08/2016 01:16 am
Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 08/08/2016 02:02 am
I keep getting irritated by the oft-repeated rubric that NASA is wasting money by developing a rocket that has no funded missions in the offing.

Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

Just as a reminder, the F-1 engine originally went into development in 1955, based upon a perceived need by the Air Force to eventually be able to orbit large payloads.

Nineteen-fifty-five.  Two years before anyone, anywhere had even demonstrated the capability of orbiting anything.  At all.

If there was a funded mission that required an F-1 engine in 1955, I'd love to see the funding appropriation for it.

And, to be honest, I don't believe it would have been possible to seek funding for Apollo if there was not an F-1 class engine already under development.  If the U.S. had been forced to try and design Apollo without the F-1 having been under development for five years already, I don't think anyone would have bitten the bullet and committed to it.  One of the reasons Apollo was considered within the realm of possibility in 1961 was the fact that the F-1 engine was scheduled to become available by 1965 or so.

Again, unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go.  And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276.  All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles. 

While the only crewed mission to fly on SLS currently funded is EM-2, at a similar point in Apollo (which was a crash program in which all elements were being designed and built all at once) there was no funding specific to any crewed Saturn V launches, much less for actual lunar landing missions.  They weren't going to happen in the next fiscal year, and as such none of the funding was specific to any such missions.

In the case of SLS/Orion, I will also point out that two of the major elements of future crewed BLEO missions -- SLS and Orion -- are in development at the same time, and targeted to come online at the same time.  And there is funding now, this year, for early stages of DSH development.  So, it's not even as if we're building a rocket that has no crewed elements under development.

When y'all toss around the complaint "no funded missions," please recall Congress only funds things one fiscal year at a time (when they bother to do so at all and we don't just get stuck with a mess of CR's).  Apollo didn't have funded crewed lunar landing missions until fiscal 1969.  NASA had a longer-than-one-year plan for Apollo, and Congress appropriated for the new fiscal year based on what NASA told them were their needs to accomplish that plan.  That doesn't differ from what's happening right now, as NASA refines their DRA for Mars and presents funding requests based on accomplishing it without many "balloon" years needed to do so (i.e., with mostly flat budgets).  Congress has given them funding for the pieces they think they need to develop in the next fiscal year.

Now, you can complain that the DRA doesn't realistically define needs for new start funding on various vehicles and preliminary missions.  But that's a far different discussion than just continuing to insist SLS must die because there are no funded missions.

Rant mode off... ;)

Completely agree.  The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.  First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides.  Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I.  Then it was funding and political will.

Opponents of SLS/Orion could care less of its progress because they feel it shouldn't exist in the first place. 

I'm a huge SpaceX band-wagoner, I love their product and what they bring to the table.  But if opponents  think SpaceX has suddenly solved how to get to Mars at 1/10 the cost simply because they are willing to accept more risk, they're kidding themselves.

EM-1 is on schedule in two short years from now, and SpaceX's plate is completely full with just LEO's activities (Crewed Dragon and F9/H customer manifest).  Regardless of our positions, we need to be rooting for both SpaceX and NASA's plans as we're going to need both entities to get to the red planet.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/08/2016 05:28 am
The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.

I think what has surprised many of us is the overall lack of interest Congress has had in starting the conversation about what the SLS is really supposed to do.  It was that point in time where I thought the real debate about the SLS would take place.  And yes, there are a couple of individual tasks being assigned to the SLS, but other than "we're going to Mars some day" there is no signature near-term need for the SLS.  Yet.

But with development getting closer to being done, an operational budget needs to be funded.  We'll see how Congress handles that.
 
Quote
I'm a huge SpaceX band-wagoner, I love their product and what they bring to the table.  But if opponents  think SpaceX has suddenly solved how to get to Mars at 1/10 the cost simply because they are willing to accept more risk, they're kidding themselves.

What SpaceX does or doesn't do has no bearing on the future of the SLS.  Certainly not in the next few years.

That's because the SLS is a government-only transportation system, and really just a NASA-only transportation system.  So the justification for the SLS rests with what our politicians task NASA to do with it.  What the rest of the world (including SpaceX) does is immaterial.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/08/2016 09:55 am
Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?

That's what they did with Skylab but it didn't work out; damage was caused during launch and ascent to the sides of the module (insulation torn off along with a solar array). I don't know if it was caused by the slipstream but it does lead to the logical conclusion that you are wiser to protect side-mounted equipment from the airflow.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2016 04:33 pm
Completely agree.  The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.  First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides.  Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I.  Then it was funding and political will.

I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration.  Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 08/08/2016 04:53 pm
how the heck are they going to test a 10m diameter fairing? Where? Or even an 8.4m fairing?

"You don't understand the power of the dark ... wait ... cost plus prime force ..." ;)

And that one won't come cheap. Also, the Skylab one didn't "fair" so well...

Thanks for the old Skylab deployment picture.  I actually wondered how it was stacked and deployed, especially with the solar telescope that stuck so oddly to one side.  So Skylab was half shrouded and the solar arrays were part of the un-shrouded section, correct?

Would a payload like "Skylab II" (the same diameter as SLS) need a jettisoned fairing at all? Why not design it with an aerodynamic forward end?

That's what they did with Skylab but it didn't work out; damage was caused during launch and ascent to the sides of the module (insulation torn off along with a solar array). I don't know if it was caused by the slipstream but it does lead to the logical conclusion that you are wiser to protect side-mounted equipment from the airflow.

Seeing how the Skylab was configured in launch form I see how the solar arrays were a bit vulnerable so I have to agree.  Had the arrays been installed on the sides of the shrouded docking adaptor that could have saved them and the grief of when one ripped off during ascent.  So any would-be Skylab 2 designs should keep arrays, radiators, ect tucked into a cocoon to play it safe.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2016 06:09 pm
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a US launch vehicle that was developed with such an ill-defined need as SLS.  Vanguard and Juno I, for example, were developed expressly for launching particular earth satellites.  The Jupiter-, Thor-, Atlas- and Titan-based vehicles that succeeded them were developed in the knowledge that many payloads needed vehicles of such sizes.  The Saturns IB and V had very specific Apollo payloads and missions.  Just about every launch vehicle since -- Shuttle, Atlas variants, Delta IV, Falcon 9 -- has been aimed at an existing stream of payloads.  Antares is different, but it nonetheless had a very clearly defined mission, namely ISS logistics.

The one exception was the Saturn I, which was initially just a big first stage, with upper stages and payloads TBD.  But even then, nobody doubted that a larger launch capability was needed, and the Saturn I soon had the Army's Advent communications satellite and Dyna-Soar as payloads.  Today, on the other hand, there is no obvious need for an SLS-sized launch vehicle.  Even if you regard the US government as being serious about sending humans to Mars, the need, much less desirability, of SLS has not been established.  Nothing like the Apollo mode debate has occurred.

The fact that politicians have written SLS's specs into law and have legally mandated its use for BEO HSF and for Europa only feed the impression that they're really more interested in the rocket than in missions for it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2016 07:31 pm
Quote
... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go.  And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276.  All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.

To amplify Space Ghost 1962's reply (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=43786) on this point, have a look at NASA's plans for the Saturn V as of October 1962 (see p. 4 of the 1st attachment or, for fuller explanation a few months later, pp. 11 & 12 of the 2nd attachment).  Then compare that with a typical projection of SLS launches, e.g., the third attachment.  There's a world of difference between them.  When NASA ordered 15 Saturn V's in 1962, it had a plan for each one of them.  With SLS, the plan, even several years and $10+ billion in, is to launch every year or two with most payloads and missions TBD.  It really does seem to be a rocket looking for missions.  Even if missions are found, it hardly seems an efficient way of doing things, especially since all missions so far have been placed on SLS by legislative fiat.

EDIT:  "second attachment" -> "third attachment"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/08/2016 07:39 pm
Quote
... unless you're running a crash program like Apollo, you don't start funding your missions until the rocket needed is designed and nearly ready to go.  And I will remind y'all that, in 1966, the only Apollo crewed missions that were specifically funded were AS-204 and AS-276.  All other Apollo missions funded in that time period were unmanned tests of the vehicles.

To amplify Space Ghost 1962's reply (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=profile;u=43786) on this point, have a look at NASA's plans for the Saturn V as of October 1962 (see p. 4 of the 1st attachment or, for fuller explanation a few months later, pp. 11 & 12 of the 2nd attachment).  Then compare that with a typical projection of SLS launches, e.g., the second attachment.  There's a world of difference between them.  When NASA ordered 15 Saturn V's in 1962, it had a plan for each one of them.  With SLS, the plan, even several years and $10+ billion in, is to launch every year or two with most payloads and missions TBD.  It really does seem to be a rocket looking for missions.  Even if missions are found, it hardly seems an efficient way of doing things, especially since all missions so far have been placed on SLS by legislative fiat.

SLS is specifically excluded for science missions by NASA management. That is the main reason there was none announced until congress stepped in. It is aggravating to read the NeMO study group state in one of their reports how they were directed to consider EELV class vehicles only and then go on to rule out possible mission goals due to mass or size constraints.

Quote
Additionally, the Mars Exploration Program directed JPL to form an Orbiter Study Team to
assess various technical options for a 2022 Orbiter and to work with NEX-SAG regarding
potential mission capabilities (item f above). Launch vehicles were directed to be in the
Falcon 9/Atlas V class.

Quote
NASA has been studying the development of even more powerful SEP systems, with a
view to their application for missions like ARRM. In this Exploration SEP option class
the spacecraft could carry a payload of mass 200-600 kg, powered by more than 5 kW.
At the higher end of capabilities in this class, the payload mass can be used to provide
enough fuel to bring the SEP-powered spacecraft out of low Mars orbit and to return
it to Earth vicinity. In that return option, the remote sensing payload would be
restricted to ~150 kg
and the Mars mission phase (including relay) would be
terminated after ~5 years.

Quote
Ultra-high-resolution optical imaging (~5 cm/pixel) has great promise for science,
resources, and reconnaissance objectives. This is the resolution that bridges the gap
between the state of knowledge from orbital images, and knowledge from rover and
landed platforms. The challenges are for the size and mass of the optics and the
demands on the spacecraft for exceptional pointing and stability.

http://mepag.nasa.gov/reports/NEX-SAG_draft_v29_FINAL.pdf
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/08/2016 07:40 pm
Development of a launch capability is never done (with the exception of during Apollo, and even then was not initiated by a funded mission) because a series of funded flights require that capability.  You need to have the capability in place before you can start to fund the missions that will take advantage of it -- again, unless you want to repeat the heady go-for-broke days of Apollo.

I'm having a hard time thinking of a US launch vehicle that was developed with such an ill-defined need as SLS.  Vanguard and Juno I, for example, were developed expressly for launching particular earth satellites.  The Jupiter-, Thor-, Atlas- and Titan-based vehicles that succeeded them were developed in the knowledge that many payloads needed vehicles of such sizes.  The Saturns IB and V had very specific Apollo payloads and missions.  Just about every launch vehicle since -- Shuttle, Atlas variants, Delta IV, Falcon 9 -- has been aimed at an existing stream of payloads.  Antares is different, but it nonetheless had a very clearly defined mission, namely ISS logistics.

The one exception was the Saturn I, which was initially just a big first stage, with upper stages and payloads TBD.  But even then, nobody doubted that a larger launch capability was needed, and the Saturn I soon had the Army's Advent communications satellite and Dyna-Soar as payloads.  Today, on the other hand, there is no obvious need for an SLS-sized launch vehicle.  Even if you regard the US government as being serious about sending humans to Mars, the need, much less desirability, of SLS has not been established.  Nothing like the Apollo mode debate has occurred.

The fact that politicians have written SLS's specs into law and have legally mandated its use for BEO HSF and for Europa only feed the impression that they're really more interested in the rocket than in missions for it.

Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements.  Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload.  There was no build it and they will come.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2016 08:45 pm
SLS is specifically excluded for science missions by NASA management. That is the main reason there was none announced until congress stepped in. It is aggravating to read the NeMO study group state in one of their reports how they were directed to consider EELV class vehicles only and then go on to rule out possible mission goals due to mass or size constraints.

There is nothing new or unusual about spacecraft having to meet mass constraints.  Establishing a launch-vehicle class for Mars missions is essentially setting a size and cost limit: even ignoring the cost of the much larger launch vehicle, an SLS-sized Mars mission will be a much larger and more expensive spacecraft. 

The Europa mission is different in that the use of SLS affects principally trajectory and mission duration rather spacecraft size.  Although an SLS launch is more expensive than an Atlas V launch, the shorter duration of the SLS-boosted mission does make it cheaper in some respects.  Whether the use of SLS in place of Atlas V reduces total costs, I don't know, and, as far as I can tell, Congress is not interested in that question.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/08/2016 08:46 pm
Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements.  Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload.  There was no build it and they will come.

I thought that was pretty much what I said, with the partial exception of the Saturn I.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Danny Dot on 08/09/2016 04:44 pm
Completely agree.  The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.  First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides.  Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I.  Then it was funding and political will.

I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration.  Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.

And don't forget the very high cost of any exploration spacecraft that is big enough to justify SLS over a Delta IV heavy.  We are talking many billions of dollars.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 08/09/2016 04:49 pm
Completely agree.  The goal post on which SLS/Orion is supposed to die changes every single year.  First is was a paper rocket and would never get out of pdf slides.  Then it was technical problems that would see it die like Ares I.  Then it was funding and political will.

I, for one, have been consistently saying for years simply that its high cost means that it will likely never deliver much in the way of actual exploration.  Using it for significant exploration would appear to require large budget increases that are unlikely.

Not just you. The biggest criticism of SLS has always been the lack of payload for it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 05:38 pm
Too many good (and not-so-good) points to pull one post out and reply to it individually, so here's a few thoughts on the discussion at this point.

Ron (and others), I hear you about what you, I, this forum, Congress, the Administration and NASA perceive as a "need" for SLS.  But note the various entities I mentioned -- they are different, serve different functions, and answer to much different constituencies.  (Thankfully, none of us here have to answer to anybody for expressing our opinions... :D )

NASA has a very specific, clearly defined need for SLS.  It is defined in the latest version of their Mars DRA.  To say that NASA has no plans to go to Mars is ridiculous -- they have had plans for decades, and keep updating and refining them.  The DRA is the "overarching vision" for Mars exploration that some people below insist doesn't exist.  NASA presents this vision before Congress every time they go to talk to them.  In this way, it's not much different from how NASA presented the Apollo DRM as their overarching plan for landing people on the Moon, back when the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations were requesting current fiscal year funding for what was needed right now to achieve that vision.

You can argue that a variety of constituencies don't agree with, or support, the current NASA Mars DRA, you can argue that it doesn't have enough political support to get funded throughout the remaining 20-some years before crewed operations could begin, you can argue a lot of things.  But you can't argue that a vision doesn't exist, or that this vision doesn't drive what NASA is asking for in re appropriations that they feel will lead to a crewed Mars exploration program in the 2030's.

To Ron specifically -- you mention that there is no need for a government-built HLV because the same NASA Mars DRA can be accomplished using commercial vehicles, and then you refute yourself by saying that NASA is not in the business of designing DRAs that use commercial vehicles, they are in the business of doing Mars missions by building their own rockets and spacecraft.  C'mon, it has to be one or the other.

Also, many of you make the point that SLS and Orion are currently in development because they are what ended up falling out of the failed Constellation program.  So, just in terms of the conditions extant when these development programs began, there wasn't a commercial HLV (or, at least, anything approaching the perceived HLV need in the DRA) available.  You couldn't in 2001 -- or even 2009 -- say "Hey, let's dump this SLS and just plan on using a Falcon Heavy for this DRA," because not only was FH not an option, it wasn't even a notional launch vehicle at those times.  And is still not a proven HLV asset available to anyone, yet.  (Soon, though, hopefully... fingers crossed...)

Finally -- in what manner would y'all believe Congress could or would have a committed, funded project to land humans on Mars?  Do you want a Congressional funding bill passed that guarantees half a trillion dollars in funding over the next 20 years?  Do you want a crash commitment, with a $100 billion this-fiscal-year supplemental appropriation, to get all the elements ready to launch before SpaceX can beat them to it?

Do you want or expect politicians who can't be guaranteed to still be in power, or even alive (a lot of them are in their 60s and 70s) in 20 years, when there will be a noticeable payoff from the investment, to get behind a 20-year funding plan?

Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period?  Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?

And, in the past 20 years, have we even had a federal government that is capable of accomplishing any planning beyond the ends of their noses?  Some agencies and administrations within the government have managed to maintain their planning and operations functions amidst the total breakdown of at least two of the three branches of government, but I can't see any indication that any Administration or Congress in at least 20 years has been able to agree on any kind of planning that goes more than a fiscal year out.  The few long-term commitments we've seen have been in defense projects (no surprise), and even those have been rarer and rarer as polarization spreads its tentacles even into the Pentagon.

I'm thinking that the USG at present is incapable of delivering the commitment y'all seem to be looking for.  I also think that you won't see any Administration go to Congress asking for funding leading directly to a manned Mars expedition until and unless the remaining investment required can be made, and the work accomplished, within the eight-year, two-term expectation of that Administration being in power.  And that's under the best of circumstances, assuming we culturally manage to reject politics of polarization and learn to work together to achieve a common goal.

And even then, such a program will need to have at least enough political support, if not popular support, to get the remaining funding through Congress.  There will need to be a really good PR case made to the American people to sway the latter.  Pork may be enough to persuade the former.

But -- if you can get the funding and support, even if just to keep the pork rolling, to develop and build many of the needed pieces to fly the DRA, you can get to within that eight-year mark of the finish line.  Only then are you going to see the commitment y'all are looking for, I think.

That's my view on it, anyway.  YMMV.  :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 08/09/2016 06:36 pm
Bucks. Once again it comes to Bucks. The discussion has pointed this out time and again. The aspect of Constellation I despised was it largely strip all other parts of NASA (including the ISS) to fund Constellation.

IMHO, that is the same now. Congress does not want to increase NASA's budget. A Public mandate for an increase does not exist. Any progress for SLS payloads will be constrained by the budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/09/2016 06:39 pm
Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period?  Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?

Apollo - proposed in Kennedy's first term in office, and his goal was two years outside of his possible last term in office.

Shuttle - formally commenced in 1972, the year Nixon was running for his 2nd term in office.  No way anyone would have expected the Shuttle to start operational flights in just 4 years.

The ISS - when Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom during his 1984 State of the Union Address, he could have only expected preliminary work to have been done on it before he left office.

Constellation program - Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004, just before his re-election.  The goal was to return to the Moon 12 years after he left office.

So yes, many Presidents have proposed efforts in space that would not have reached space until after their time in office had ended.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/09/2016 07:09 pm
Payloads drive launch vehicle requirements.  Any upgrades or new vehicles in the last 50 years have been driven by the needs of a payload.  There was no build it and they will come.

The best answer here.

And it isn't that hard to consider the payload. With Saturn V it was a lunar stack, with Shuttle it was a space station.

So, lets say the aggregate payload is a Mars surface expedition. You'll have a sequence of launches to get it there. Next, you go find the way to get it there.

If you don't, too easy to not do the mission for too many reasons.

A solid objective (Moon, Station, ... Mars?) delivers solid missions using solid SC that require launch capability. Hand please meet glove.

Now ... why doesn't that occur? Blame game. We don't really want to set the objective because we'll be blamed for consuming the budget, and possibly won't continue because it'll get "Proxmired" by someone part way through. Congress can't even agree on lunch at noon today, and now they'd have to agree for more than a decade.

So they build what they think John Q Public want's to see, hang a sign on it as "world's biggest rocket", and tell NASA to use it somehow, then be critical of what follows. Leadership.

Can you make it work? Possibly. We could have done Moon/Station with Titian too, but it likely would have taken a lot longer, perhaps two decades and a couple of stations - Korolev had similar notions. Apollo was a genuine plan by a leader to get there in a decade, and along the way the Saturn V became the LV that got it and the LM there.

It's not the absence of the payloads as much as the absence of the leadership/objective/plan/commitment that makes those payloads/missions to use them.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 07:35 pm
Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished during a max two-term (eight-year) period?  Can you name any President in the past 60 years who has proposed anything he knew could not be accomplished during his own Presidency?

Apollo - proposed in Kennedy's first term in office, and his goal was two years outside of his possible last term in office.

Shuttle - formally commenced in 1972, the year Nixon was running for his 2nd term in office.  No way anyone would have expected the Shuttle to start operational flights in just 4 years.

The ISS - when Reagan proposed Space Station Freedom during his 1984 State of the Union Address, he could have only expected preliminary work to have been done on it before he left office.

Constellation program - Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in 2004, just before his re-election.  The goal was to return to the Moon 12 years after he left office.

So yes, many Presidents have proposed efforts in space that would not have reached space until after their time in office had ended.

Apollo -- the original text of Kennedy's address to Congress on May 25, 1961 called for this nation "to achieve the goal, by 1967, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."  NASA was strongly pressed to maintain a 1967 target date for the first lunar landing, and when this was found not to be feasible (after Kennedy was dead, realized at some point early in 1965), the pre-Fire DRM for Apollo called for the first landing to occur in spring or summer of 1968.  Still within the magic 8-year timeframe.

The "before this decade is out" was a weasel-word way to save face if it didn't happen by the end of his term, but the goal was always quite clear -- to land a man on the Moon before Kennedy left office after a second term.  Even after Kennedy was killed, the planning dates continued to be no later than 1968, up until the Fire forced an 18-month pause in the schedule.

Shuttle -- it was either that or cancel all American manned space flight entirely, and Nixon wasn't ready to harm the American image worldwide by doing that, I don't think.  He never really associated himself with that program, it was not something his Administration asked for, it's something NASA asked for that his Administration went along with.

ISS -- at that time, Freedom was deep into planning stages at various levels of NASA, and could well have flown its first segments prior to 1988.  I'm positive the planning was to achieve the first segments before Reagan left office.  He did say "within the decade," and his term officially ended in January of 1989 -- so, yeah, that was his goal, certainly.

Constellation -- yep, the only one that was looking at first flights 10 to 12 years after inception.  And offered up in a spirit of "Hey, I'm tryin' for it, but if y'all don't go along after I'm gone, no skin off my legacy..."  And was mostly conceived to keep the pork flowing, not necessarily because GW had a serious vision of human deep-space exploration.  And suffered exactly what everyone said it would, just as soon as GW was out of office -- the exception that proves the rule.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 08/09/2016 08:02 pm
Shuttle -- it was either that or cancel all American manned space flight entirely, and Nixon wasn't ready to harm the American image worldwide by doing that, I don't think.  He never really associated himself with that program, it was not something his Administration asked for, it's something NASA asked for that his Administration went along with.

Close enough. Maybe NASA needs a plan that the next administration will go along with.

Constellation -- yep, the only one that was looking at first flights 10 to 12 years after inception.  And offered up in a spirit of "Hey, I'm tryin' for it, but if y'all don't go along after I'm gone, no skin off my legacy..."  And was mostly conceived to keep the pork flowing, not necessarily because GW had a serious vision of human deep-space exploration.  And suffered exactly what everyone said it would, just as soon as GW was out of office -- the exception that proves the rule.

Orion and SLS are modified parts leftover from Constellation. Orion directly and SLS is a variant of Ares V, a Shuttle derived HLV. So, in a way VSE lives on.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/09/2016 08:47 pm
And it isn't that hard to consider the payload. With Saturn V it was a lunar stack, with Shuttle it was a space station.

Minor objection:  when the Shuttle was approved, there was no space station or any plan to build one.  The Shuttle's purpose was explicitly to replace all other US launch vehicles.

Of course, when NASA first started talking about shuttles, it was in the context of space-station logistics.  Perhaps the fact that NASA continued to propose a Shuttle despite the fact that the mission changed completely was a warning sign the the Nixon administration missed.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 08/09/2016 09:02 pm
I remember it a bit differently. Economics of reuse meant that STS must fly often. Flying often meant all payloads had to be on the Orbiter. All payloads included the largest payloads. The requirements for those large payloads set the requirements for the Orbiter and the entire STS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/09/2016 09:05 pm
Apollo -- the original text of Kennedy's address to Congress on May 25, 1961 called for this nation "to achieve the goal, by 1967, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

What Kennedy told Congress on May 25, 1961:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space."

You're arguing against the facts here.

Quote
Shuttle -- it was either that or cancel all American manned space flight entirely, and Nixon wasn't ready to harm the American image worldwide by doing that, I don't think.  He never really associated himself with that program, it was not something his Administration asked for, it's something NASA asked for that his Administration went along with.

Nevertheless, he committed our nation to building the Shuttle - which wouldn't fly until after he was out of office.  This satisfies your original requirement.

Quote
ISS -- at that time, Freedom was deep into planning stages at various levels of NASA, and could well have flown its first segments prior to 1988.  I'm positive the planning was to achieve the first segments before Reagan left office.  He did say "within the decade," and his term officially ended in January of 1989 -- so, yeah, that was his goal, certainly.

You keep moving the goal posts.  Your original claim was:

"Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished..."

Station completion could never have completed in 4 years.  Something launched during that time maybe, but not "accomplished".

Quote
Constellation -- yep, the only one that was looking at first flights 10 to 12 years after inception.  And offered up in a spirit of "Hey, I'm tryin' for it, but if y'all don't go along after I'm gone, no skin off my legacy..."

Now you're interpreting the motivations of the President and Congress of the time.  Moving goals posts...

Quote
And suffered exactly what everyone said it would, just as soon as GW was out of office -- the exception that proves the rule.

It suffered that fate not because of the goal, but because of the increasing cost of that goal - which was Michael Griffin's responsibility.  If the program would have stayed in budget it would not have been cancelled.

So what I have shown is that Presidents ARE willing to propose space programs that are not accomplished within their terms in office.  Although as we know our current President didn't think NASA needed an HLV (prescient as it turned out), so he has no motivation to propose programs of any duration that require the SLS.

We'll see what the next President thinks...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/09/2016 09:06 pm
I remember it a bit differently. Economics of reuse meant that STS must fly often. Flying often meant all payloads had to be on the Orbiter. All payloads included the largest payloads. The requirements for those large payloads set the requirements for the Orbiter and the entire STS.

Kansan52, I don't see where we disagree.  I'm saying that the purpose of the Shuttle which was approved was to carry all payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/09/2016 09:14 pm
So, just in terms of the conditions extant when these development programs began, there wasn't a commercial HLV (or, at least, anything approaching the perceived HLV need in the DRA) available.  You couldn't in 2001 -- or even 2009 -- say "Hey, let's dump this SLS and just plan on using a Falcon Heavy for this DRA," because not only was FH not an option, it wasn't even a notional launch vehicle at those times.

There wasn't a government HLV either.

What there was in 2009-10 was a widespread inaccurate belief that NASA nearly had an HLV:  "all" it had to do was re-arrange the Shuttle stack*.  Circa 2010, both ULA and SpaceX suggested they could field HLVs for single-digit billions of dollars.  From the vantage point of 2010, we can look back and say that more time and money will go into SLS Block I before its first flight (in fact, more money has already been spent) than what ULA and SpaceX said the needed.

Maybe ULA and SpaceX were wrong, maybe SpaceX was not worth taking seriously at the time.  Maybe Shuttle-C would have been the right way to go  But I don't believe ULA's proposals were ever officially evaluated.

* I just tracked this down to a statement by Mike Griffin on 2 May 2005 (see the 12th page of the attached PDF): "As NASA Administrator, I already own a Heavy Lifter (in) the Space Shuttle stack.  I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because .... any other solution for getting 100 tons into orbit is going to be more expensive than efficiently utilizing what we already own."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/09/2016 09:52 pm
Apollo -- the original text of Kennedy's address to Congress on May 25, 1961 called for this nation "to achieve the goal, by 1967, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

What Kennedy told Congress on May 25, 1961:

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space."

You're arguing against the facts here.

Quote

You missed my meaning.  The original draft of the speech, not the speech as given, set a specific goal of achieving the lunar landing by 1967.  The speech was revised, nearly at the last minute, to read "before this decade is out" instead.

Trust me, I heard that speech live.  I recall it personally.  I know exactly what Kennedy said.  He also did not say he was personally setting the U.S. on a course to the Moon -- he said he was asking Congress and the American people to choose to do this, and warned right up front it would be the most expensive demonstration of American space superiority that we could possibly embark upon during this period.

And look at the NASA timeline for achieving the lunar landing -- up until late '65, it called for the lunar landing to occur in 1967, and for Block I Apollo flights to begin in mid-1966, before the end of Gemini's flight program.  After that, it called for the landing to occur in 1968.  Right up until the Fire, the planning was for the first lunar landing to occur in spring or summer 1968.  Before the end of what would have been Kennedy's second term.

My point stands... :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/10/2016 03:14 am
{snip}
You keep moving the goal posts.  Your original claim was:

"Do you expect any Administration to propose anything they perceive cannot be accomplished..."

Station completion could never have completed in 4 years.  Something launched during that time maybe, but not "accomplished".

{snip}

This suggests that the SLS needs NASA to produce a 30 year payload plan. IMHO Since presidential terms are 4 years there must be an outfeed every 3-4 years to maintain political support. Changes in names and launch order will almost certainly occur. To get results NASA Administrators will have to negotiate with future Presidents and Congress.

The SLS will be able to deliver 70-130 tonnes to LEO and Block 1B about 45 tonnes to Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 2 (EML-2).

45 tonnes is sufficient to launch a small spacestation, such as a Bigelow BA330-DS, to EML-2. Equipping the spacestation with arms will permit repairing of and loading cargo into lunar landers or Mars Transfer Vehicles. Locating the spacestation at EML-2 enables the same spacestation to be reused to do both jobs.

The SLS can send a manned Orion to various places.

About 100 tonnes to LEO is too small for an entire lunar or Mars village but I suspect it is sufficient for an initial construction yard. A bulldoze and ground sinterer to create the landing pad, spaceport electronics including radar, a manned rover, a BA330-DS as builder's hut and a dry lander may fit into that mass budget. Additional buildings and walkways can be added later. A picture of the yard containing the Caterpillar space construction equipment could make a good sales aid.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: sdsds on 08/10/2016 06:22 am
What there was in 2009-10 was a widespread inaccurate belief that NASA nearly had an HLV:  "all" it had to do was re-arrange the Shuttle stack*. [...] Maybe Shuttle-C would have been the right way to go [...]


* I just tracked this down to a statement by Mike Griffin on 2 May 2005 (see the 12th page of the attached PDF): "As NASA Administrator, I already own a Heavy Lifter (in) the Space Shuttle stack.  I will not give that up lightly and, in fact, can't responsibly do so because .... any other solution for getting 100 tons into orbit is going to be more expensive than efficiently utilizing what we already own."

I assert the belief was accurate and the HLV NASA "nearly had" was the one you mention: Shuttle-C. Or the DIRECT Jupiter-130. (We agree Boeing/NASA were no where close to having an HLV like SLS! ;) )
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/10/2016 01:21 pm
But when Griffin made the remark, he was busy pursuing Ares V.  And many in this forum have expressed similar thoughts about SLS despite the fact that, even on its original schedule, SLS was to cost about $10 billion to first (70-tonne) flight, more that the ULA proposal.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/10/2016 01:33 pm
Simply put, there was too much ego, ambition, commercial interest and politics in both the Ares Launch System and all discussion of alternatives/successors. Like it or not, SLS is too far along to achieve anything substantive with a cancellation other than years of lost time whilst the reset takes hold. Better to make use of what you're going to get as efficiently as possible. I'm sure that there are just as vehemently-held views about what 'best possibly use' would mean too! :(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 08/10/2016 03:45 pm
I think it is important recognize that SLS was not the quickest and cheapest SDHLV option even back then. There were a whole range of options with a spectrum of cost and capability. On the lower end was Not Shuttle C and on the high end was Ares V. The SLS of today sits somewhere near the middle of that spectrum. The decision was made to spend more to get a more capable rocket. Was that the right call, even at the time? I don't know. However back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/10/2016 04:08 pm
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.

Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion?  Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/10/2016 05:20 pm
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.

Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion?  Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.

My understanding is that the Augustine Commission basically said there are some missions that could benefit a lot from a super-heavy LV, but that you should only do so if you have a really definite need for one.  In other words, their recommendation (which we are currently almost exactly anti-observing) was that you should only build one if and when you need it, and only if it seems more economical to launch big pieces in fewer launches than launching a lot of pieces in a lot more launches.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about their conclusions, but that was what I took away from reading the report.

Because of how everything fell out of the Constellation failure, however, NASA got to continue to develop their super-heavy launcher, at the expense of completing it at a useful point, i.e., when it will be needed.  As it is, it will be developed well before it will be needed for any major exploration program -- even interim uses, like the Europa orbiter/lander mission, could be done on smaller boosters, albeit using longer trajectories.  So, it has uses prior to the development of all the pieces NASA wants to build for their long-range Mars plans, but none that absolutely require it.  For now, between the qualification flights of SLS and the first flights of Mars expedition spacecraft, it'll be more like "Hey, we have this super-excellent hammer!  Is there anything around here that looks like a great big nail?"  Lots of things will pop up that suddenly look like really tempting nails.

But this is why we're having the discussion right now of building a rocket that has no defined purpose.  I think this is an artifact of how Constellation got shut down, and which elements came out of it.  Since Constellation was already well into development of the launch-and-entry spacecraft and the super-heavy booster, those continued.  There hasn't been any money to do more than paper studies and a little prototyping of any of the other pieces they know they will need for their Journey to Mars.  Many mission modules and systems, like landers, landing systems, surface hab design, ECLSS design, etc., etc., aren't even out there with much more than the first preliminary paper studies in work yet.  If that.

There's a long way to go, a lot of development yet to be done, and, admittedly, no timeframes or budget projections for doing it.  The DRA informs us of what pieces are currently anticipated to be needed, but the only pieces currently being turned into hardware of any type are SLS, Orion and various DSH prototypes -- none of which (the DSH prototypes, that is) are guaranteed to even fly.  There is even a little flight hardware for crewed missions already seeing metal being bent.  But nothing, yet, that will begin to support even the first steps of the DRA, which currently calls for a build-up of infrastructure in cislunar space before high-thrust electric propulsion systems, landing systems, etc., even begin to come online.

I'm certain NASA has definite plans for using the pieces as they become available, they just haven't put those plans into a defined funding plan that requests new starts for upcoming needs, like operational DSH units, electric propulsion modules, mission modules, etc., etc.  Likely, again, because they can only do one or two things at a time in a flat-budget funding environment.

However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA.  It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan.  Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 08/10/2016 08:47 pm
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.

Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion?  Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
We both can point to studies that show our respective views on HLV or not debate. I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate. The sentence that you cherry picked was referring to an SDHLV being the majority consensus of the space flight engineering and planning community at that time, not necessarily the best option.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/10/2016 09:08 pm
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA.  It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan.  Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?

Since NASA works for the NASA Administrator, and the NASA Administrator works for the current President of the United States (who also controls all budget requests that go to Congress), that means you're expecting President Obama to announce a Mars proposal that he wants another President and another Congress to fund?

That sure seems like bad timing to me...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 08/10/2016 11:57 pm
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA.  It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan.  Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?

Since NASA works for the NASA Administrator, and the NASA Administrator works for the current President of the United States (who also controls all budget requests that go to Congress), that means you're expecting President Obama to announce a Mars proposal that he wants another President and another Congress to fund?

That sure seems like bad timing to me...

Yeah, that would amount to Bolden trying to set Administration space policy, rather than responding to policy set by the Administration, and what's more trying to politick the two main campaigns.  The former would be an infraction of the chain of command, the latter something more extreme and intolerable.

On the other hand, the President has not seen to gainsay all the NASA rhetoric about the Journey to Mars, when all Obama has ever committed to publicly has been the ARM mission, and Presidents do have these legacy issues when coming to the ends of their terms... ;)

I was just taken with the timing of rumored announcements of new information about NASA's Mars plans, is all, I guess.  Thanks for bringing me back to Earth (literally), Ron!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/11/2016 12:08 am
However, with rumors that NASA may make some important announcements about their future Mars plans in the near future (perhaps spurred by the SpaceX announcement of their architecture, planned for just more than a month from now), we might actually begin to hear about a proposed sequence of budget requests that will result in flying some form of their Mars DRA.  It might even be good timing, to get it discussed in the Presidential campaign and possibly get a campaign commitment from one or more of the candidates to support the plan.  Couldn't hurt to at least try, right?

Since NASA works for the NASA Administrator, and the NASA Administrator works for the current President of the United States (who also controls all budget requests that go to Congress), that means you're expecting President Obama to announce a Mars proposal that he wants another President and another Congress to fund?

That sure seems like bad timing to me...

Yeah, that would amount to Bolden trying to set Administration space policy, rather than responding to policy set by the Administration, and what's more trying to politick the two main campaigns.  The former would be an infraction of the chain of command, the latter something more extreme and intolerable.

On the other hand, the President has not seen to gainsay all the NASA rhetoric about the Journey to Mars, when all Obama has ever committed to publicly has been the ARM mission, and Presidents do have these legacy issues when coming to the ends of their terms... ;)

I was just taken with the timing of rumored announcements of new information about NASA's Mars plans, is all, I guess.  Thanks for bringing me back to Earth (literally), Ron!

Just to refresh everybody's memories, this is what Obama said in his Kennedy speech.

Quote
Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we'll start -- we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/obama_ksc_pod.html

Bolden setting a roadmap to accomplish Obama's directive of human visits to mars and an asteroid is not going outside of the chain of command.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 08/11/2016 01:27 am

Just to refresh everybody's memories, this is what Obama said in his Kennedy speech.

Quote
Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. (Applause.) And by 2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep space. (Applause.) So we'll start -- we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history. (Applause.) By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/obama_ksc_pod.html

Bolden setting a roadmap to accomplish Obama's directive of human visits to mars and an asteroid is not going outside of the chain of command.

 :) Folks from Hawthorne should shaved about 5 years from the schedule lay out in the Obama Kennedy speech while skipping the asteroid. Yeah don't think Obama have them in mind as the men on Mars in his lifetime. Presuming everything falls in place, the next POTUS might be getting a call from Mars during second term in office.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Impaler on 08/14/2016 06:35 am
Obama's original plan immediate after constellation imploded was to scrap every part of constellation and simply to have NASA do commercial crew and tech development for the next decade, as that was clearly what they needed, no grandiose missions to be done under his administration, just the actual preparatory work that is supposed to make our civilian space sector globally competitive and make future missions affordable.

But congress wouldn't abandon constellation components or fund basic research and instead demanded that the administration find a use for their senate launch system.  That is when ARM was developed as the last best hope for getting some in-space propulsion developed within the budget sliver left available, congress immediately began strangling the idea in the cradle.

Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/14/2016 03:42 pm

Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.

Since it requires constant reinforcement...

That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/14/2016 07:00 pm

Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.

Since it requires constant reinforcement...

That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/15/2016 02:47 pm
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.

Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion?  Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.

My understanding is that the Augustine Commission basically said there are some missions that could benefit a lot from a super-heavy LV, but that you should only do so if you have a really definite need for one.  In other words, their recommendation (which we are currently almost exactly anti-observing) was that you should only build one if and when you need it, and only if it seems more economical to launch big pieces in fewer launches than launching a lot of pieces in a lot more launches.  Please correct me if I'm wrong about their conclusions, but that was what I took away from reading the report....

Augustine (report attached) very definitely concluded that super-heavy lift is needed for human exploration beyond LEO.  But its definition of "super-heavy" is "larger than the current 'heavy' EELVs, whose mass to low-Earth orbit is in the 20-25 mt range" [Sect. 5.2.1, p. 64].

More specifically,
Quote from: Augustine report, Sect. 5.2.1, p. 65
The Committee commissioned a detailed analysis of the reliability of missions that would require multiple launches of critical and less critical payloads.  It found that achieving reasonable probability of mission success requires either 90+ days of on-orbit life for the EDS, or a depot, and that at most three critical launches should be employed.  Since it is very constraining to balance mission components to always partition equally between launches, this strongly favors a minimum heavy-lift capacity of roughly 50 mt that allows the flexibility to lift two “dry” exploration elements on a single launch.

So, that's the short answer to the question.  Augustine goes on to compare Shuttle- and EELV-derived HLVs:
Quote from: Augustine report, Sect. 6.5.3, pp. 93-94
While there are technical differences between the two families [of launch vehicles: NASA-heritage and EELV], the Committee intended the principal difference to be programmatic.  The EELV-heritage super heavy would represent a new way of doing business for NASA, which would have the benefit of potentially lowering development and operational costs. The Committee used the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to investigate the possibility of an essentially commercial acquisition of the required heavy-launch capability by a small NASA organization similar to a system program office in the Department of Defense.  It would eliminate somewhat the historic carrying cost of many Apollo- and Shuttle-era facilities and systems. This creates the possibility of substantially reduced operating costs, which may ultimately allow NASA to escape its conundrum of not having sufficient resources to both operate existing systems and build a new one.

However, this efficiency of operations would require significant near-term realignment of NASA. Substantial reductions in workforce, facilities closures, and mothballing would be required. When the Committee asked NASA to assess the cost of this process, the estimates ranged from $3 billion to $11 billion over five years. Because of these realignment costs, the EELV-heritage super heavy does not become available significantly sooner than the Ares V or Shuttle-derived families of launchers. The transition to this way of doing business would come at the cost of cutting deeply into a the internal NASA capability to develop and operate launchers, both in terms of skills and facilities.

In summary, the Committee considers the EELV-heritage super-heavy vehicle to be a way to significantly reduce the operating cost of the heavy lifter to NASA in the long run.  It would be a less-capable vehicle, but probably sufficiently capable for the mission. Reaping the long-term cost benefits would require substantial disruption in NASA, and force the agency to adopt a new way of doing business.  The choice between NASA and EELV heritage is driven by potential lower development and operations cost (favoring the EELV-heritage systems) vs. continuity of NASA’s system design, development and mission assurance knowledge and experience, which would provide higher probability of successful and predictable developments (favoring NASA systems). EELV-heritage launch systems, due to their lower payload performance, would require significantly greater launch and mission complexity to achieve the same total mass in orbit. The EELV option would also entail substantial reductions in the NASA workforce and closure of facilities necessary to obtain the expected cost reductions.

Augustine noted that the use of 50-tonne-class launch vehicles required the development of in-space refueling.  But it's interesting that NASA's recent Evolvable Mars Campaign breaks payloads down into 50-tonne chunks without refueling.  If LEO were used for rendezvous in addition to or in place of lunar DRO, then 50-tonne-class launch vehicles would suffice.  Whether such a thing would be desirable is another matter, but to my knowledge NASA has never officially even considered the possibility (unless you count the deeply flawed ESAS study of 2005: that's the one that claimed EELVs could not safely launch crews because of "black zones" and assumed a failure rate in excess of 1% for autonomous rendezvous and docking).

EDIT:  Added missing closing quotation mark to "black zones" in last sentence.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/15/2016 02:54 pm
... back then a SDHLV appeared to be the best way to meet the lift needs of a BEO program.

Can you point to an engineering study backing up that conclusion?  Many appear to believe that Augustine reached this conclusion, but it did not.
We both can point to studies that show our respective views on HLV or not debate. I'm not really interested in rehashing that debate. The sentence that you cherry picked was referring to an SDHLV being the majority consensus of the space flight engineering and planning community at that time, not necessarily the best option.

Could you please contribute references to the pro-HLV studies to which you refer to this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32810.0).  I have been looking for such studies for a long time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/16/2016 11:00 am

Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.

Since it requires constant reinforcement...

That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.

It is in principle true that when one of its programs ends, NASA simply looses the money.  In practice, though, NASA's inflation-adjusted budget has been approximately constant for decades, even as big programs have come and gone (e.g., Constellation, ISS, the Shuttle, X-33, Hubble, JWST).  Though there is always a risk that next time will be different, in practice the forces that Robotbeat identifies seem to keep the cash flowing.

And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 08/16/2016 09:02 pm
I was looking at doing a SLS animation one day, when I came across this video on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK1foInKm00

Now, at first, I was inclined to think it was a fan-created animation, but several angles and elements are identical to the EM-1 video that NASA posted.  To the level that I can't see it being done by anyone but the actual animation house that does the official NASA animations who has those scene setups already (one of them at least)...

I suppose if nothing else, its a preview of what we might see.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/16/2016 10:05 pm
I think this is new, but if not remove:

NASA's Marshall Center - Done in 60 seconds: See a Massive Rocket Fuel Tank Built in A Minute

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IcPrSIjxnc

Not a fan of the music though - too "edgy"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 08/17/2016 12:05 am
I found this one that has also not been posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTyj9liLYsY
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 08/17/2016 09:24 am
I think this is new, but if not remove:

NASA's Marshall Center - Done in 60 seconds: See a Massive Rocket Fuel Tank Built in A Minute
<snip>
Not a fan of the music though - too "edgy"
Is posted in the updates thread.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 08/17/2016 09:25 am
I found this one that has also not been posted:
<snip>
Older one. Also posted in the updates thread.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 08/17/2016 09:28 am
I was looking at doing a SLS animation one day, when I came across this video on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=bK1foInKm00

Now, at first, I was inclined to think it was a fan-created animation, but several angles and elements are identical to the EM-1 video that NASA posted.  To the level that I can't see it being done by anyone but the actual animation house that does the official NASA animations who has those scene setups already (one of them at least)...

I suppose if nothing else, its a preview of what we might see.

One minor nit pick. The EUS should do a burn after core separation to get into LEO. The solar arrays then deploy, followed by TLI.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 08/17/2016 07:22 pm
I was looking at doing a SLS animation one day, when I came across this video on YouTube:
youtube.com/watch?v=bK1foInKm00

Now, at first, I was inclined to think it was a fan-created animation, but several angles and elements are identical to the EM-1 video that NASA posted.  To the level that I can't see it being done by anyone but the actual animation house that does the official NASA animations who has those scene setups already (one of them at least)...

I suppose if nothing else, its a preview of what we might see.

One minor nit pick. The EUS should do a burn after core separation to get into LEO. The solar arrays then deploy, followed by TLI.

Yeah, the EM-1 video also doesn't follow the actual timing of events as they've shaken out. 

Apparently this IS an official animation:
https://youtu.be/Tijap2ocSs4
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 08/17/2016 07:33 pm
While not relating to the EM-1 flight directly, news related to the Europa 'Clipper says the SLS is still their first choice, with Delta 4 and FH as alternatives.

http://spacenews.com/europa-mission-planning-for-possible-budget-cuts-in-2017/ (http://spacenews.com/europa-mission-planning-for-possible-budget-cuts-in-2017/)

It makes me wonder which version of SLS will be utilized; there's only one flight of the Block 1 version scheduled, for EM-1.  However, technically 2 Delta-derived upper stages were bought by NASA.  Most Europa presentations mentioning the SLS refer to Block 1 launchers.  I presume the Block 1B is the 'real' plan, but again I wonder if either version is possible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 08/18/2016 02:30 am
It makes me wonder which version of SLS will be utilized; there's only one flight of the Block 1 version scheduled, for EM-1.  However, technically 2 Delta-derived upper stages were bought by NASA.  Most Europa presentations mentioning the SLS refer to Block 1 launchers.  I presume the Block 1B is the 'real' plan, but again I wonder if either version is possible.

To get to Block IB the umbilicals and the ML have to be modified. EC is not going to be ready until 2022 or so at the earliest so the necessary mods would have to be delayed far longer than planned. That is not a smart strategy IMO. Plus depending on how adamant the Astronaut safety office is on having a IB launch before EM-2 (and how quickly EC is ready) the EC mission could get the first IB at the same time it would have gotten a Block I in your scenario.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/18/2016 05:04 pm

Our best hope is that SpaceX simply shames or litigates the SLS into a quick retirement with the BFR and NASA has thouse funds freed up to purchase all transport services from SpaceX and develop actual mission hardware.

Since it requires constant reinforcement...

That's not how appropriations work. If SLS ends NASA does not keep the money.
Sure, why not? Congress still wants jobs in those districts, NASA will just have to use the same workforce to build something different, like habs or asteroid grabbing robots or whathaveyou. SLS isn't the only thing that can provide that pork.

It is in principle true that when one of its programs ends, NASA simply looses the money.  In practice, though, NASA's inflation-adjusted budget has been approximately constant for decades, even as big programs have come and gone (e.g., Constellation, ISS, the Shuttle, X-33, Hubble, JWST).  Though there is always a risk that next time will be different, in practice the forces that Robotbeat identifies seem to keep the cash flowing.

And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Dante80 on 08/23/2016 12:23 am
Interesting interview with Bill Hill, manager of exploration systems development for NASA, about how much will SLS and Orion cost to fly.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/how-much-will-sls-and-orion-cost-to-fly-finally-some-answers (http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/08/how-much-will-sls-and-orion-cost-to-fly-finally-some-answers)

Some excerpts:

Quote
“My top number for Orion, SLS, and the ground systems that support it is $2 billion or less,” Hill told Ars. “I mean that’s my real ultimate goal. We were running at about three-plus, 3.6 billion [dollars] during the latter days of space shuttle. Of course, there again, we were flying six or seven missions. I think we’re actually going to have to get to less than that.”

(...)

Quote
During the space shuttle days, about 1,200 people worked at 40 stations to assemble the shuttle's external tank, which was a relatively simple design when compared to to the SLS core stage. Today, about 400 people with Boeing, the prime SLS contractor, work at a handful of stations to assemble the core stage. It represents a sign— a small but tangible one—that NASA might yet wrangle its big rocket and spacecraft costs into submission.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2016 03:06 pm
Build rate!

Shuttle tank build rate was 6 per year. SLS build rate is 2 maybe. That is a factor of 3 difference and the main reason you see the 1200 personnel for Shuttle vs the 400 for SLS. Meaning the cost of the SLS core will be no more expensive "maybe" than the Shuttle ET.

In the end this is actually a good cost reduction accomplishment since lower build rate should have a higher manpower use per unit. So if the SLS core was manufactured at same rate as ETs, the manpower per SLS core should be less than an ET.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2016 06:53 pm
SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.

If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/23/2016 06:55 pm
...
In the end this is actually a good cost reduction accomplishment since lower build rate should have a higher manpower use per unit. So if the SLS core was manufactured at same rate as ETs, the manpower per SLS core should be less than an ET.
Doesn't work like that because a lot of the absolute savings they're getting is by DRASTICALLY reducing the maximum production rate to just 2 per year (versus just about an order of magnitude higher for Shuttle).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/23/2016 08:08 pm
Build rate!

Shuttle tank build rate was 6 per year. SLS build rate is 2 maybe. That is a factor of 3 difference and the main reason you see the 1200 personnel for Shuttle vs the 400 for SLS. Meaning the cost of the SLS core will be no more expensive "maybe" than the Shuttle ET.

To a certain extent the number of personnel needed is not tied to the production rate.

For instance, the reason the Shuttle ET could be built in large quantities per year was due to tooling, not personnel specifically.  And the reason why the SLS is limited to being able to build less than two per year is partly due to tooling.

Also the SLS line is more automated than the Shuttle ET line was, so trying to draw conclusions from just staffing rates is not likely to yield useful information.

Quote
In the end this is actually a good cost reduction accomplishment since lower build rate should have a higher manpower use per unit. So if the SLS core was manufactured at same rate as ETs, the manpower per SLS core should be less than an ET.

Should be.  Although we also don't know the make-up & pay levels of the production staff required, so it could be a matter of comparing apples to oranges.

In general I hesitate to draw any conclusions or comparisons of the Shuttle vs the SLS, since they are more different than they are alike.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 08/23/2016 09:08 pm
Thanks for the open discussion about what we believe the number of personnel means for SLS costs compared to the statement from the NASA source is an interesting contrast. His statement is pure yearly costs and ours is per unit.

If his under $2B is for the yearly cost of SLS then at a flight rate of every other year from 2022 to 2028 (4 launches) makes the per launch cost of SLS just under $4B each!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/23/2016 11:06 pm
SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.

If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.

Just look at the VAC flow and you will see that it is more than half an SLS per year.

July 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank qualification article complete
June 2016 - SLS O2 tank confidence article
June 2016 - LVSA structural test article
April 2016 - Engine section flight article
Feb 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank confidence article

That hardware represents everything that goes into the Core stage except the forward skirt and inter-tank...in half a year.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/23/2016 11:13 pm
SLS build rate is like half per year, not 1 per year.

If you're going by max rate, you'll have to compare with Shuttle's projected max (15, 20 per year? 40?). Shuttle achieved 9 missions one year and has a whole bunch of years where they achieved 7 or 8.

Just look at the VAC flow and you will see that it is more than half an SLS per year.

July 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank qualification article complete
June 2016 - SLS O2 tank confidence article
June 2016 - LVSA structural test article
April 2016 - Engine section flight article
Feb 2016 - SLS hydrogen tank confidence article

That hardware represents everything that goes into the Core stage except the forward skirt and inter-tank...in half a year.

I think Robotbeat was referencing the flight rate need based on the interview with NASA's Bill Hill.

And while the development schedule could show what's possible, Boeing and NASA would likely have different goals for development versus production, and what you do in development is not always what you do (i.e. staffing, production rates, etc.) in production.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/25/2016 02:10 pm
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994?  If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/25/2016 11:56 pm
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994?  If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.


Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.

Funding also dropped significantly after the cancelling of constellation and the shuttle program in 2010. It is simply not feasible to ramp up funding for alternative programs quick enough to offset the abrupt termination of large scale programs like ISS, Orion or SLS. There is also simply the lack of motivation to start another large decade long program when the last one was a failure. Orion and SLS being successful, within the confines of the goals of the program, is good for NASA's topline budget while failure will have at least some detrimental affects.

This is all besides the point though. Someone was making the case that NASA's budget never significantly goes up and down and hence the topline budget can never be damaged by anything. This is clearly not the case, but there is a post Apollo floor of about 15 billion(2014 dollars) that it never has gone below. We, today, at a budget of 19.3 billion aren't near that floor and so a significant drop is feasible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/26/2016 07:36 pm
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994?  If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.


Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.

Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it.  Thus, there was nothing to cancel.  More later when I have more time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/26/2016 08:42 pm
There is also simply the lack of motivation to start another large decade long program when the last one was a failure. Orion and SLS being successful, within the confines of the goals of the program, is good for NASA's topline budget while failure will have at least some detrimental affects.

I don't know why anyone would be surprised that American aerospace companies can build a rocket and a capsule to ride on the rocket.  We perfected this 50 years ago.  Even millionaires with no experience can do this nowadays.

However focusing attention on the SLS and Orion ignores the only question that matters - is there really a government need to send a lot of mass and people into space after the ISS is gone?

Today there isn't.  Other than onesie-twosie type payloads like the Europa Multiple-Flyby Mission, Congress so far has refused to approve efforts that would require yearly launches of the SLS.

That's not NASA's fault.  NASA isn't allowed much say on their future.  It's really a situation of circumstance, since whatever is next will cost a lot of money, yet we as a nation don't have an urgent need to do whatever is next right away.  Like fixing our terrestrial infrastructure, which Congress continues to delay fixing - pushing it off onto our children and grandchildren.  The Moon and Mars will still be there for them, so why hurry?

Quote
This is all besides the point though. Someone was making the case that NASA's budget never significantly goes up and down and hence the topline budget can never be damaged by anything. This is clearly not the case, but there is a post Apollo floor of about 15 billion(2014 dollars) that it never has gone below. We, today, at a budget of 19.3 billion aren't near that floor and so a significant drop is feasible.

NASA has a lot of overhead.  Things like wind tunnels, engine testing facilities, zero-gravity simulation pools, etc.  Which are needed if the U.S. Government is building it's own capabilities in space.

But we have certainly reached a moment in history where the private sector is more capable than NASA for pushing mass to & through space.  And without a defined need for capabilities that don't exist in the private sector, the business case for NASA to continue to have lots of legacy development capabilities will just get weaker.

That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector.  And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 08/26/2016 10:01 pm
That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector.  And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?

Well... not always this bit.  Its often extremely disastrous for everyone (but the stakeholders) to privatize everything.  Perhaps its emblematic of my generation, but I prefer having baseline government accountability instead the impenetrable black box of private corporations for most things.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/28/2016 06:16 pm
That is not America becoming weaker, that is the successful shift of capabilities from the government to the private sector.  And shouldn't that always be the goal for non-defense capabilities?

Well... not always this bit.  Its often extremely disastrous for everyone (but the stakeholders) to privatize everything.  Perhaps its emblematic of my generation, but I prefer having baseline government accountability instead the impenetrable black box of private corporations for most things.

I do agree that there are some things that make sense to keep government-owned, like defense and government specific services, or keep as a public benefit monopoly like power & water services, and basic mail.

There are also cases to be made for the government to subsidize certain services in order to assure access for what is perceived to be a national need, and our national road system is certainly a good example of that, where the government not only subsidizes the interstate road network, but state and local roads too.  Science falls into this category too.

I use the following philosophy to help me understand what the role of the government should be:

"The government should only do what individuals or the private sector can't or won't do."

Now there is a lot of leeway in that, and I'm quite willing to state not everything is black and white.

But with regards to moving mass to space, and through space, our private sector is certainly capable of satisfying whatever the government forecasts their needs to be.  In other words, other than money, the U.S. Government doesn't have any innate abilities that can't be matched or surpassed by our private sector, and because of that having the U.S. Government develop their own transportation system is duplicative at best, and thus wasteful of taxpayer money.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/28/2016 06:57 pm
And with a NASA-managed launch vehicle, there are funding risks as the program moves from one phase to the next, as Blackjax pointed out some time ago in what I thought was a very interesting post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421).

It has been approximately constant for decades, give or take a couple billion dollars. Removing SLS and/or Orion and NASA not keeping all or most of the money is entirely consistent with the waxing and waning of NASA's budget historically. For instance, in 1991, the 2014 inflation adjusted budget was 24,235. In 1994, it was 21,979. This represented a decrease of about 10%, which is about the portion of NASA's budget that is dedicated to SLS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

Was a major program canceled between FY 1991 and FY 1994?  If not (and off hand, I can't think of one), this information tends to suggest that factors other than cancellations are a bigger risk than cancellations.


Space Exploration Initiative. A return to the moon and a manned mission to mars was abandoned under Clinton who labeled it too expensive. Without a BEO program, NASA was descoped and hence required less funding to complete a more limited mission.

Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it.  Thus, there was nothing to cancel.  More later when I have more time.

NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/28/2016 08:52 pm
Look, the way the economy runs right now does not allow the past to function as it did.

How to use things to get somewhere is more the challenge, when we have different choices then before.

Unfortunately (in retrospect) Congress chose a poor time to chose, and ended up with vehicles/programs that are awkward to go forward with.

So none of the past funding situations gives any clarity to this more novel situation. And the associated politics are unpredictable WRT to proceeding further.

Reason is that there are enough "commercial" vehicles to complicate forward budgeting of landers/habs/etc all up government development - they'll have to be leveraging the existing ones for economic/regulatory reasons.

Also, since reusable LV's might be able to get those vehicles to destinations, even with multiple launches (now possible), the scope of SLS use will remain restricted. Follow-on SLS upgrades would also be scoped/budgeted against those same mature vehicles, so redoing the core/boosters won't easily be in the cards.

Best one can hope for is to apply some of the benefits obtained from "commercial" LV's where possible to extend SLS economic "life" to where non EM1/2 missions have significant impact given what EUS allows.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 08/28/2016 11:17 pm



NASA has a lot of overhead.  Things like wind tunnels, engine testing facilities, zero-gravity simulation pools, etc.  Which are needed if the U.S. Government is building it's own capabilities in space.

But we have certainly reached a moment in history where the private sector is more capable than NASA for pushing mass to & through space.  And without a defined need for capabilities that don't exist in the private sector, the business case for NASA to continue to have lots of legacy development capabilities will just get weaker.



The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 08/29/2016 12:36 am
The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.

The same could be said about just about everything the government funds - we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.  But the money that paid for all that came from taxpayers, both private citizens and companies, so sharing that knowledge is part of the repayment.  And at least for NASA, it's mandated by law that they share what they have learned.

And that still doesn't alter the situation we have where the private sector is now more capable than NASA with regards to moving mass to space.  NASA is just contracting for services - paying Boeing to build the SLS, paying someone else to manage the launch ops, etc.  Other than money, NASA is not really bringing much to the table that the private sector wouldn't be able to do on their own - if asked.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 08/29/2016 05:57 pm
The reason commercial space companies, especially new ones can build lower cost vehicles (landers, LV, capsules etc) is because they have full access to NASA facilities and knowledge. Without NASA help a lot of these companies would never get off the ground.

The same could be said about just about everything the government funds - we all stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.
Various parts of government haven't absorbed the changes in processes/acquisition. Time lagged by change too fast.

Quote
But the money that paid for all that came from taxpayers, both private citizens and companies, so sharing that knowledge is part of the repayment.
To a degree. NASA doesn't share proprietary information but, like AF, is "informed" by it. Both AF/NASA maintain "subject matter expertise" from all of them.

Quote
And at least for NASA, it's mandated by law that they share what they have learned.
Perspective not always practice.

Quote
And that still doesn't alter the situation we have where the private sector is now more capable than NASA with regards to moving mass to space.  NASA is just contracting for services - paying Boeing to build the SLS, paying someone else to manage the launch ops, etc.  Other than money, NASA is not really bringing much to the table that the private sector wouldn't be able to do on their own - if asked.
Which is why NASA needs "practice". Our idi0t policymakers are beginning to twig to that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 08/30/2016 06:08 am
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it.  Thus, there was nothing to cancel.  More later when I have more time.

NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.

But Congress did not appropriate any funds for SEI.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 08/30/2016 05:27 pm
Bush the Elder proposed SEI and NASA performed a well-known 90-day study (http://www.spudislunarresources.com/blog/virtues-of-the-90-day-study/), but Congress never funded it.  Thus, there was nothing to cancel.  More later when I have more time.

NASA got significant increases in funding every year for a few years after the 1989 speech. At one point, NASA was 1.0% of the federal budget. If those budget levels were sustained, adjusted for inflation, conceivably 2 or 3 parts of the 3 part SEI could have been completed and not just the space station.

But Congress did not appropriate any funds for SEI.

It depends on if you consider Space Station Freedom as part of SEI. Space Station Freedom received billions of dollars per year in that time period. Ultimately, reluctant funding of the space station only delayed the project. References to mars missions and lunar bases show up in NASA budget documents of the early 1990s and so even if there were not explicit funding from congress, resources were being allocated for really early stages.

But my point is that if NASA had a budget today that it had back then, it would be able to accomplish a full mars landing mission. The extra funds back then were being put into the space station which was seen as the first step on the road to Mars. Which is actually the program of record for NASA today BTW. The funding drop was related to not following up with the next part in a multi-part plan by the administration of Bush Sr. The National Launch System wasn't funded back then, but it is basically the configuration of SLS that is cutting hardware now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/02/2016 02:44 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time. 


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 09/02/2016 03:35 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time. 

As much as I started that on Twitter, let's not start that again here on NSF, please? I could answer your objections, but I think most people here have already made up their minds and don't want to hear constant criticism from those of us who think SLS is a waste.

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 09/02/2016 04:45 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Arb on 09/02/2016 07:41 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, ... if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV...
Minor nit. The phrasing you used always irks me. My understanding is that the top of NASA (Bolden and Garver at the time) did not want SLS; it was Congress that insisted. Though, on reflection, you may have been thinking of the Constellation program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 09/02/2016 11:32 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 09/03/2016 12:34 am
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon

I'm more the middle of the road for SLS (i.e. government launcher) v.s. (new school) commercial v.s. (old school/ULA) traditional providers.  Boeing, Lockheed, OrbitalATK, SpaceX, and NASA have ALL had rocket explosions before; rockets DID basically evolve from military flying bombs so what do you expect?  Of course, at the least, we want them to explode less often.  We can be thankful, in SpaceX's case, that only the rocket and satellite were lost and not much else.

So far the best estimates for the SLS launch rate are 3 a year (which is on the very optimistic side), although a more median (if not conservative) estimate is 1.75 (one year with a single launch, 3 years of double launches, and another single launch year).  That could be consistent with predominantly Orion launches coupled with either cargo or probe launches.

Using a Mars mission as an example, I could see an SLS launch putting up either large cargo lander or the crew transfer vehicle, with each becoming respective nuclei for the surface and interplanetary legs of the mission.  Additional components, modules, and the crew themselves could use smaller rockets delivering to LEO or perhaps sending small cargo landers directly to Mars.  The SLS (1B/2 blocks) could reliably hoist 100 metric tons, the FH ~50, and Vulcan ~20 (I'm having trouble pinning down their exact LEO estimate, so I'm trying to error on the generous side for them).  There's bound to be elements that can fit as well onto smaller launchers.

The main error I see just lays with using Orion in any of these plans, or at least in its current form; it's too heavy and too weak to help enough as opposed to using Red Dragon or Starliner, which could be modified for one way Mars trips (even the Starliner is being designed with air bags for landings, not ocean recoveries).

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 09/03/2016 06:27 am
To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

My impression was that the administration was dead set against Lunar exploration (and still is). Their plan was to cancel Constellation and perform research and development for five years. So by 2015 they would have finished their studies. They don't say what happens after that. From the FY2011 budget request.

"Exploration Research & Development
The Budget includes three new robust exploration programs:
1. Technology demonstration program, $7.8 billion over five years. Funds the development and demonstration of technologies that reduce the cost and expand the capabilities of future exploration activities, including in-orbit refueling and storage.
2. Heavy-Lift and Propulsion R&D, $3.1 billion over five years. Funds R&D for new launch systems, propellants, materials, and combustion processes.
3. Robotic precursor missions, $3.0 billion over five years. Funds cost-effective means to scout exploration targets and identify hazards and resources for human visitation and habitation."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: the_other_Doug on 09/04/2016 06:05 am
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon

Admit it, Jon -- you saw the back-of-a-napkin drawing "To the Moon on Saturn C-1 or Bust!" from 1962 that broke an Apollo CSM/LM stack into eight separate C-1 launches, with another four for TLI impulse, at an impressionable age, and never got over it, right...?  ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/04/2016 07:08 pm
I think maybe Jon saw the EELV-class vehicles we already launch everything on today.

BTW, let's identify a thread to put all this on or stop talking about it.

(And by the way, this is NOT Jon's fault... someone brought up a tweet he made in this thread.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 09/05/2016 03:37 am
After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.

The best assumption is that no transportation system is perfect, which is why I have long advocated that our efforts in space should be done on commodity lifters (i.e. rely on in-space assembly using payloads that fit on whatever commercial launchers are available worldwide).

And one of my concerns about the SLS has been the one Jon voiced about the SLS being unique, and irreplaceable when payloads are sized specifically for it's unique capabilities.  SpaceX customers have backups, but NASA will not.

Quote
I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.

That would probably be the rational response for most leaders.  But Elon Musk has consistently demonstrated that when given the choice to slow down or speed up, he speeds up.  We'll see what he does soon.

However his Mars plans are likely being funded by his Earth-based transportation services, so unless he can keep his flight manifest full that will impact his schedule for building his Mars hardware.

Quote
They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I seem to recall the same was said after their previous accident.  But there are a number of financial calculations being done right now by insurance companies and potential customers, so we may not know the effects of this failure for a while.  My guess though is that it won't result in a big financial impact.

Quote
I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

Only SpaceX has actual plans for going to Mars, and their goal is to make humanity multi-planetary.

The United States of America does not have an official goal for going to Mars.  Sure NASA is wanting to go, and is preparing to go, but there is no political goal for going there.  And because there is no political goal, NASA has stated that it will likely take decades to get to Mars (and aerospace experts has stated that it's more like "never" at current funding levels).

ULA, Bigelow, and pretty everyone else in aerospace (including Blue Origin) have no announced goals for going to Mars.

So SpaceX is really the only organization that is ready to lead on this effort, though I'm sure SpaceX would welcome others to contribute.  But it's hard to see ULA spending their own money to help SpaceX goes to a place where there is no corporate profit motive.  And NASA is unlikely to be allowed to contribute too much too as long as the SLS and Orion are active programs.

But if the U.S. Government can finally agree on a true need for going to Mars, then sure, maybe there would be enough common interest to partner up.  But I think it's unlikely we'll see a political goal agreed to anytime soon...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: b0objunior on 09/05/2016 03:41 am
Are we discussing SLS, or SpaceX? I'm not sure anymore.
 :-X
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 09/05/2016 04:18 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon

I disagree, with a mars campaign and the high delta-v requirements for re-use of a transfer vehicle, every pound of habitation system has a high IMLEO penalty. Looking at historical mass to volume ratios for space stations, modular stations have a ~ 2 to 1 disadvantage.

Single launch space stations
Skylab - 214 kg/m^3
Salyut 7 - 211 kg/m^3
Genesis II - 118 kg/m^3

Modular space stations
Mir - 370 kg/m^3
ISS - 460 kg/m^3

An SLS at 2 billion per launch and 105,000 kg at LEO costs $19047 per kilogram to orbit. A Delta-IV heavy at 400 million per launch costs $13900 per kilogram to orbit. Modularity for habitation would roughly double the IMLEO mass of a mars campaign(it trickles down to propulsion for the same delta-v) and so you would end up paying roughly the same in launch costs either way. Falcon heavy didn't exist in 2010 and has unknown reliability but probably <93% that Falcon 9 has. SLS likewise has unknown reliability but NASA has a roughly 1-2% failure rate historically on Shuttle/Saturn. My 2 billion per launch is based on 2 billion per year from 2011-2020 at $2 billion/year for 1 launch, $2 billion/year in 2021-2025 for 1 launch per year and $2.5 billion/year in 2026-2036 for 2 launches per year. This gives 28 launches in this time frame for a total cost of $57.5 billion(2016 dollars not counting inflation) or $2 billion/launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 09/05/2016 05:41 pm
Admit it, Jon -- you saw the back-of-a-napkin drawing "To the Moon on Saturn C-1 or Bust!" from 1962 that broke an Apollo CSM/LM stack into eight separate C-1 launches, with another four for TLI impulse, at an impressionable age, and never got over it, right...?  ;)

No, I just want to see the Moon become affordable enough to access that commercially viable businesses are possible. Sending 4-6 government employees off for a multi-billion dollar expedition that in no way makes it easier for lower-cost follow-on missions just doesn't get me that excited.

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jongoff on 09/05/2016 05:41 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon

I disagree, with a mars campaign and the high delta-v requirements for re-use of a transfer vehicle, every pound of habitation system has a high IMLEO penalty. Looking at historical mass to volume ratios for space stations, modular stations have a ~ 2 to 1 disadvantage.

Single launch space stations
Skylab - 214 kg/m^3
Salyut 7 - 211 kg/m^3
Genesis II - 118 kg/m^3

Modular space stations
Mir - 370 kg/m^3
ISS - 460 kg/m^3

An SLS at 2 billion per launch and 105,000 kg at LEO costs $19047 per kilogram to orbit. A Delta-IV heavy at 400 million per launch costs $13900 per kilogram to orbit. Modularity for habitation would roughly double the IMLEO mass of a mars campaign(it trickles down to propulsion for the same delta-v) and so you would end up paying roughly the same in launch costs either way. Falcon heavy didn't exist in 2010 and has unknown reliability but probably <93% that Falcon 9 has. SLS likewise has unknown reliability but NASA has a roughly 1-2% failure rate historically on Shuttle/Saturn. My 2 billion per launch is based on 2 billion per year from 2011-2020 at $2 billion/year for 1 launch, $2 billion/year in 2021-2025 for 1 launch per year and $2.5 billion/year in 2026-2036 for 2 launches per year. This gives 28 launches in this time frame for a total cost of $57.5 billion(2016 dollars not counting inflation) or $2 billion/launch.

You're baking in a lot of assumptions there about what I'm proposing, most of which are wrong. But as I said, I wasn't trying to drag this thread off-topic.

~Jon
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 09/05/2016 05:58 pm
Jon posted this today

Jonathan A. Goff (@rocketrepreneur) tweeted at 8:21 AM on Fri, Sep 02, 2016:
Heck, we might even be actually exploring by now if it hadn't been for NASA's insistence on building a NASA-run HLV (12/n)
(https://twitter.com/rocketrepreneur/status/771442911481171969)

When SLS was proposed, SpaceX was unkown especially F9 which left ULA.
Using the existing Delta Heavy with extra SRBs and ACES would've got a 45t HLV. To go any heavier they needed 2xRD180 core (70t in 3 core heavy version), not option given it was Russian engine. Developing a RD180 replacement was an option but it would only been ready about now. With 70t HLV flying about 2018 on unproven engine.

http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf (http://cloud.tapatalk.com/s/57c98c9d6744b/EELVPhase2_2010.pdf)

NASA still would have been up for Orion development to enable BLEO HSF, which required a 70t HLV with LH/LOX US.

SLS may not be cheap but it was most reliable way to get a HLV given flight proven engines available at time.

After the failure of the F9 yesterday, I think its a pretty clear reminder that nothing should be taken for granted.  I am a huge supporter of SpaceX, but BFS/MCT have no business being on their road map right now until they figure out what is going on.  They will definitely survive this accident, but I believe they can't afford another failure for quite some time.

I think it is also a good reminder, that we will need everyone pulling in the same direction, including SLS/SpaceX/ULA/Bigelow, etc if we have any chance of getting to Mars.

To be clear I wasn't saying anything about speculative future SpaceX launch vehicles. My point was that you can do a quite capable Lunar program, and possibly even a decent Martian program starting with the vehicles available in the 2010 timeframe. You would need to use some sort of distributed lift, but that's a trivial cost to develop relative to what's been spent on SLS/Orion to-date. But that's not the route that Congress went.

Anyhow, didn't want to drag this into NSF, as I'm sure everyone knows how I feel about SLS by this point. :-)

~Jon

I disagree, with a mars campaign and the high delta-v requirements for re-use of a transfer vehicle, every pound of habitation system has a high IMLEO penalty. Looking at historical mass to volume ratios for space stations, modular stations have a ~ 2 to 1 disadvantage.

Single launch space stations
Skylab - 214 kg/m^3
Salyut 7 - 211 kg/m^3
Genesis II - 118 kg/m^3

Modular space stations
Mir - 370 kg/m^3
ISS - 460 kg/m^3

An SLS at 2 billion per launch and 105,000 kg at LEO costs $19047 per kilogram to orbit. A Delta-IV heavy at 400 million per launch costs $13900 per kilogram to orbit. Modularity for habitation would roughly double the IMLEO mass of a mars campaign(it trickles down to propulsion for the same delta-v) and so you would end up paying roughly the same in launch costs either way. Falcon heavy didn't exist in 2010 and has unknown reliability but probably <93% that Falcon 9 has. SLS likewise has unknown reliability but NASA has a roughly 1-2% failure rate historically on Shuttle/Saturn. My 2 billion per launch is based on 2 billion per year from 2011-2020 at $2 billion/year for 1 launch, $2 billion/year in 2021-2025 for 1 launch per year and $2.5 billion/year in 2026-2036 for 2 launches per year. This gives 28 launches in this time frame for a total cost of $57.5 billion(2016 dollars not counting inflation) or $2 billion/launch.
When talking $/kg to orbit in regards to SLS better use TLI than LEO. SLS price should look even better then than commercial LV.

The issue with getting crew to DSH at lunar DRO is not TLI required by LV but also DV required by crew vehicle from TLI- DSH-TLI. Around 1600m/s I think, this adds significant mass to service module.

ULA ACES could in theory deliver Orion direct to DSH, the Orion would still need to provide the return DV.

The alternative is a orbital transfer OTV vehicle, eg ACES with habitat that does LEO- DSH- LEO round trip. DSH would still need an Orion for emergency returns to earth as boil off would preclude having OTV attached to DSH during crew stay.

There is no real substitute for HLV if you want to deliver crew direct to DSH in one launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 09/05/2016 07:39 pm

When talking $/kg to orbit in regards to SLS better use TLI than LEO. SLS price should look even better then than commercial LV.

The issue with getting crew to DSH at lunar DRO is not TLI required by LV but also DV required by crew vehicle from TLI- DSH-TLI. Around 1600m/s I think, this adds significant mass to service module.

ULA ACES could in theory deliver Orion direct to DSH, the Orion would still need to provide the return DV.

The alternative is a orbital transfer OTV vehicle, eg ACES with habitat that does LEO- DSH- LEO round trip. DSH would still need an Orion for emergency returns to earth as boil off would preclude having OTV attached to DSH during crew stay.

There is no real substitute for HLV if you want to deliver crew direct to DSH in one launch.
The list of HLVs that could do it (none have flown to date and are in various states of design/development)

SLS 1A (still being developed although in flight hardware manufacturing stage with 1B still in the design phase build as an increment to 1A by adding an EUS) can do it [actually SLS 1A or later derived versions is a SHLV].

FH (at a more mature stage in the development than SLS 1A but not by much) can do it barely [it is also a SHLV].

Vulcan/ACES (still at design phase) requires distributive launch to accomplish crew rotation task for DSH [it is only a HLV but as far as using distributive launch it could be classed as a SHLV for BEO consideration].
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 09/28/2016 03:40 am
Ride With Astronauts In Flyby Salute to Marshall Center Test Stand 4697 Construction Teams

NASA's Marshall Center

Published on Sep 27, 2016
NASA astronaut Don Pettit captured this video from the cockpit with Victor Glover as they and fellow astronauts Barry "Butch” Wilmore and Stephanie Wilson banked low over Marshall Space Flight Center at Huntsville, Alabama, saluting to teams finishing construction of Test Stand 4697. In the short video edited by Pettit, viewers fly along from the astronauts' takeoff in two NASA T-38 jets from Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base in Houston to their landing at Huntsville International Airport for meetings at Marshall. (NASA/Don Pettit)

https://youtu.be/uyYJR5DJEB8?t=001

https://youtu.be/uyYJR5DJEB8
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 01/10/2017 08:35 am
And I recall that SLS's 5-segment SRBs stage higher and faster than the Shuttle's 4-segment ones, making recovery more difficult.

Re. the faster part, wouldn't drag decelerate them to about the same terminal velocity before the drogues deployed?

I presume the major issue would be the increased heating and aeroloads on re-entry rather than the terminal speed.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Scotty on 01/14/2017 11:41 pm
Moot point, as the SRB's will not be recovered on SLS.
The SRB's are now one shot, throw them away.
The issue was the parachutes, the five segment booster weighed too much for the existing SRB parachutes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 01/15/2017 10:04 pm

I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/16/2017 06:42 am

I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/16/2017 01:18 pm

I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.

Correct, which is why I wonder why they are not recovering the Block 1 and 1B SRBs. Especially in the light that it is highly unlikely that the Block 2 ever flies because of funding issues. Even if it did they could just discard the SRBs from a Block 2 launch. Seems to me like a financial gift to ATK which will get to keep making the SRBs from scratch instead of refurbishing them like we did for the STS. Pork barrel funding.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 01/16/2017 01:28 pm
It's my understanding that for the Shuttle, reusing SRBs cost about as much money as it saved.  At SLS's lower flight rates, reuse would surely cost more.

Recovery would allow SRBs to be examined for signs of damage.  I'd have thought that could be important for safety.  After all, ATK's (or Thiokol's, as they were at the time) were in a position to warn about launching STS-51L because they'd correlated O-ring blow-by on SRBs with launch temperature.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/17/2017 07:39 am
It's my understanding that for the Shuttle, reusing SRBs cost about as much money as it saved.  At SLS's lower flight rates, reuse would surely cost more.

Recovery would allow SRBs to be examined for signs of damage.  I'd have thought that could be important for safety.  After all, ATK's (or Thiokol's, as they were at the time) were in a position to warn about launching STS-51L because they'd correlated O-ring blow-by on SRBs with launch temperature.
"Recovery-is-for-safety" is a myth IMO. Liquid fueled (booster) stages for manned vehicles (such as Atlas, Titan and Saturn) were not recovered to enhance safety, despite the fact the liquid fueled stages can be just as dangerous as their solid counterparts. Liquid stage recovery only happened on STS, but only because the system was part of the orbiter. But it won't happen for CCP Atlas V and will not happen for SLS Core Stage, etc.

Recovery of the STS SRB's was IMO for one reason, and one reason only: NASA sold STS to Congress as a reusable system. So, the SRB's had to be reusable, despite the fact that such reuse never delivered the cost-savings that NASA had promised to US Congress. The latter is the very reason why SLS SRB's won't be recovered. It is just not worth the additional cost and effort.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 01/17/2017 01:18 pm
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery.  Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand.  Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes.  SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs.  Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine.  The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.

EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/17/2017 01:29 pm
Of course, if you recover liquid engines, you could fuel them up fairly easily and fly again. For solids, you might as well build a new motor because reuse doesn't save money.

That's why I think many companies are pursuing liquid engines. Combined with the fact that a much greater degree of control is possible with liquids and performance is significantly higher (Isp and mass fraction). For a solid rocket, you need more stages, and you need a final liquid stage anyway if you want anything like a precision orbital insertion (which most payloads want).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Calphor on 01/17/2017 02:04 pm

I think it also important to note that the up-mass penalty for a notional working parachute system would further compromise what is already a vehicle seeking every efficiency to even get close to 100+ tonnes, much less 130...
AFAIK the block 1 vehicle is supposed to do 70 metric tons but is in fact doing 80+ metric tons. Also, the block 1B vehicle will do 105+ metric tons easily. It's the block 2 vehicle that is coming up short.

Correct, which is why I wonder why they are not recovering the Block 1 and 1B SRBs. Especially in the light that it is highly unlikely that the Block 2 ever flies because of funding issues. Even if it did they could just discard the SRBs from a Block 2 launch. Seems to me like a financial gift to ATK which will get to keep making the SRBs from scratch instead of refurbishing them like we did for the STS. Pork barrel funding.
You know the economics of this one. At the current or even proposed flight rates, refurbishing the boosters will cost more than building from scratch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/18/2017 03:12 pm
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery.  Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand.  Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes.  SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs.  Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine.  The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.

EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"

Excellent point(s). 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 01/24/2017 10:22 pm
Wind Tunnel Testing Underway for Next, More Powerful Version of NASA SLS Rocket

NASA's Marshall Center

Published on Jan 24, 2017
Engineers at NASA's Langley Research Center and Ames Research Center are running tests in supersonic wind tunnels to develop the next, more powerful version of the world's most advanced launch vehicle, the Space Launch System -- capable of carrying humans to deep space destinations. The new wind tunnel tests are for the second generation of SLS. It will deliver a 105-metric-ton (115-ton) lift capacity and will be 364 feet tall in the crew configuration -- taller than the Saturn V that launched astronauts on missions to the moon. The rocket's core stage will be the same, but the newer rocket will feature a powerful exploration upper stage. On SLS’s second flight with Orion, the rocket will carry up to four astronauts on a mission around the moon, in the deep-space proving ground for the technologies and capabilities needed on NASA’s Journey to Mars.

https://youtu.be/TiHYN3307zk?t=001

https://youtu.be/TiHYN3307zk
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/25/2017 08:00 am
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery.  Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand.  Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes.  SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs.  Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine.  The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.

EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 01/25/2017 08:22 pm
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery.  Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand.  Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes.  SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs.  Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine.  The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.

EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.

But that only thing learned from recovered SRBs was absolutely crucial, and led engineers to recommend against launching Challenger on 27 January 1986.  The significance of the recovered SRBs is seen, for example, in a January 1985 telegram (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p247b.htm) recommending a review of erosion specifically as a result of erosion observed on STS-51C.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/26/2017 08:19 am
I see a difference, though, between liquid and solid stages as regards the usefulness of recovery.  Liquid propulsion systems can be and usually are ground-tested extensively, racking up tens of thousands of seconds on the test stand.  Solid systems often get just a handful of tests, each lasting a couple of minutes.  SLS's 5-seg SRBs, for example, will have about 10 minutes' time under their belts by the time of EM-1, and I believe a similar number applied to the Shuttle's 4-seg SRBs.  Hence, the incremental value of a recovered SRB will be relatively much larger than that of a recovered liquid engine.  The only loss of crew ever due to propulsion failure was foreseen by Thiokol's engineers on the basis of data gathered from recovered SRBs.

EDIT: "under belts" -> "under their belts"
Not quite. Temperature-driven erosion of O-rings had in fact been spotted in land-based development and qualification firings as well. The phenomenon was not properly understood but considered to be benign. As a result of this assessment, no furter effort was undertaken to understand this particular behaviour of the seals between SRB segments. The only thing Thiokol learned from the recovered boosters was that the behaviour from the development and qualification firings manifested itself, more severely, in actual flights.

But that only thing learned from recovered SRBs was absolutely crucial, and led engineers to recommend against launching Challenger on 27 January 1986.  The significance of the recovered SRBs is seen, for example, in a January 1985 telegram (https://history.nasa.gov/rogersrep/v1p247b.htm) recommending a review of erosion specifically as a result of erosion observed on STS-51C.
When something is not properly understood, particularly in a safety critical item such as an SRB, it should be investigated further. However, that did not happen. As a result, NASA started flying a vehicle in 1981 that had known unknowns about the safe performance of the SRB's.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: dks13827 on 01/27/2017 12:12 am
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry.  Is that the plan ?  Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 01/27/2017 12:16 am
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry.  Is that the plan ?  Thanks.

Actually I thought that was for EM-2, the crewed flight, so that life-support could be checked out before venturing to the Moon.  I was under the impression the EM-1 flight would essentially go straight to the Moon, do a couple orbits, and then head back.  EM-1 didn't have the burden of life-support checkups so it was going to fly out in more straightforward fashion to test propulsion and navigation chiefly.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 01/27/2017 12:21 am
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry.  Is that the plan ?  Thanks.

Actually I thought that was for EM-2, the crewed flight, so that life-support could be checked out before venturing to the Moon.  I was under the impression the EM-1 flight would essentially go straight to the Moon, do a couple orbits, and then head back.  EM-1 didn't have the burden of life-support checkups so it was going to fly out in more straightforward fashion to test propulsion and navigation chiefly.

EM-2 also has an option to enter into High Lunar orbit, if approval is given.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 01/27/2017 01:42 am
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry.  Is that the plan ?  Thanks.

No. EM-1 is direct to TLI, then orbit in DRO for a while before coming back. EM-2 may use a different profile, where it spends a day in an elliptical Earth orbit, then boosts to TLI (taking 3 days to reach the moon), and, depending on how the mission goes up til then, will either take a 3 day free return to earth, or enter lunar orbit for a few days
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 01/27/2017 03:34 am

okan170 and brickmack essentially say the same thing, and that is my understanding as well.  Let's all hope EM-2 happens, and does go in to lunar orbit
...so says he who regularly says "Hope for the best, plan for the worst"; "Hope is essential to the human condition" and  "Hope is not a strategy".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 01/27/2017 03:33 pm
My understanding is EM-1 is a 3 week mission with Earth orbit for 2 weeks then a pass around the moon then back to earth for entry.  Is that the plan ?  Thanks.

No. EM-1 is direct to TLI, then orbit in DRO for a while before coming back. EM-2 may use a different profile, where it spends a day in an elliptical Earth orbit, then boosts to TLI (taking 3 days to reach the moon), and, depending on how the mission goes up til then, will either take a 3 day free return to earth, or enter lunar orbit for a few days

That sounds like what I heard.  It's especially uncertain what EM-2 will do around Luna exactly; it could do DRO/High Orbit like EM-1 but if they're concerned over life-support it may end up a short mission playing it safe.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/02/2017 10:27 pm
Just a recent picture of 39B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: quanthasaquality on 03/06/2017 06:09 am
Would Boeing? become faster and cheaper at designing rockets based on the hydrogen-oxygen 8.4 meter fuel tanks after the development of the SLS block 1B? For instance, would it be able to design a 6 rs-25 rocket faster? Or a smaller rocket with 3 rs-25, or an upper stage with 2 j-2x engines? Presumably these rockets can also be manufactured in Machoud similar to the SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 03/06/2017 02:31 pm
Would Boeing? become faster and cheaper at designing rockets based on the hydrogen-oxygen 8.4 meter fuel tanks after the development of the SLS block 1B? For instance, would it be able to design a 6 rs-25 rocket faster? Or a smaller rocket with 3 rs-25, or an upper stage with 2 j-2x engines? Presumably these rockets can also be manufactured in Machoud similar to the SLS.

In my opinion, the SLS core as currently designed will be the last to fly the RS-25, ever. Blue Origin's first BE-4 just rolled off the line. That's the first reusable high-thrust engine built in the US since RS-25, and signals the end of the road for the RS-25.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/06/2017 02:44 pm
Would Boeing? become faster and cheaper at designing rockets based on the hydrogen-oxygen 8.4 meter fuel tanks after the development of the SLS block 1B? For instance, would it be able to design a 6 rs-25 rocket faster? Or a smaller rocket with 3 rs-25, or an upper stage with 2 j-2x engines? Presumably these rockets can also be manufactured in Machoud similar to the SLS.

In my opinion, the SLS core as currently designed will be the last to fly the RS-25, ever. Blue Origin's first BE-4 just rolled off the line. That's the first reusable high-thrust engine built in the US since RS-25, and signals the end of the road for the RS-25.

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 02:55 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.


SLS isn't going to last 5 years.  Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/06/2017 02:58 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.

By who?  SLS is likely the last large rocket designed and managed by NASA

I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.

I agree with your statement, SLS will likely be the last rocket NASA ever designs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/06/2017 03:03 pm

I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.


SLS won't be in service long.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 03/06/2017 06:16 pm

I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.


SLS won't be in service long.
I seem to get the idea that reality is catching up to the SLS program.

We knew it would happen but it seems to be happening faster than we expected.

SLS is a political rocket program. It lives based on the push by Congress and the ignoring by the Administration. If the push lessens or the Administration does an active opposition then its life becomes very short.

So I agree that it's time is limited.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 03/06/2017 07:23 pm
Yes, there never has been any shortage of people ready to declare SLS dead as a door nail for any reason. Democrats in power, Republicans in power, bad weather, good weather, whatever.

Or, you know, we could wait until the authorization and appropriation bills are actually passed and signed into law. That might give an actual indication of what the future holds. If all we get are continuing resolutions for the next four years, SLS will continue to muddle along as it always has, slowly, painfully inching towards completion. Maybe even launch a few times (or more), who knows?

And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST.

Hopefully Congress will get around to designing payloads once their rocket is flying. 130 tonne payloads. :)



Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/06/2017 07:56 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.


SLS isn't going to last 5 years.  Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion?  Does ESA know?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 08:27 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.


SLS isn't going to last 5 years.  Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion?  Does ESA know?

 - Ed Kyle

Orion can only go to the Moon. 
At that price point, why bother?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/06/2017 08:38 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.


SLS isn't going to last 5 years.  Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion?  Does ESA know?

 - Ed Kyle

Orion can only go to the Moon. 
At that price point, why bother?
That's not what this page says.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orion-58.html

Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon.  It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 03/06/2017 08:47 pm
Orion eventually will not need SLS.  It could be launched on Vulcan, FH, or Blue Origins new vehicle in a few years.  It can also be launched on DIV heavy.  With docking, in space refueling, SLS will be too expensive, thus Jim's comment of about 5 years.  Private companies are moving fairly fast with larger reusable rocket developments.  Orion will or can be used for deep space, but SLS may not be needed in a few years. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 03/06/2017 08:48 pm

End of the road insofar as being used on another rocket.  RS-25 is likely to be in-service for another 20 to 30 years on SLS.


SLS isn't going to last 5 years.  Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
So Jim, you are shutting down Orion?  Does ESA know?

 - Ed Kyle

Orion can only go to the Moon. 
At that price point, why bother?
That's not what this page says.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orion-58.html

Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon.  It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/

 - Ed Kyle

I think they are taking a bit of literary license. 
They advertise what, 3 crew for 21 days?  A bit short of Mars.

Anything heading for Mars will require habitation module(s) to supply the long duration needs of the crew.  Dragging Orion along serves no purpose and is in fact a hindrance -- it has been left in DRO on everything I've seen Mars-bound (except the LM concept that had paired Orions going to Martian orbit).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tater on 03/06/2017 08:51 pm

That's not what this page says.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orion-58.html

Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon.  It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/

 - Ed Kyle

Thousands of miles beyond the moon doesn't matter, what's there? Orion goes no place interesting without a more capable craft attached to it.

SLS (what the thread is about) needs payloads. Orion is a payload, and all it can do is be in space around Earth (or around the Moon). To make SLS make sense cost-wise, they need to launch 2X+/year, and that seems incredibly unlikely. I don't think Dragon 2 around the Moon is a thing in 2018, but I honestly think that that is far more likely than SLS ever having a full slate of launches scheduled (2 or more a year starting with EM-2).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/07/2017 12:13 pm
...

Even EM-1 is not going to the Moon.  It is going "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasaorion/23128839505/

 - Ed Kyle

You are being sarcastic, right?
Your joke antenna is not calibrated.

Mars is 56,000,000km (35,000,000 miles at its closest), while the Moon is 385,000km (239,000 miles)
I'm calibrated.  Thousands of miles is a road trip in my Subaru...

We are paying for millions of 'miles'.
Ed was talking about EM-1. That mission is going to the vicinity of the Moon, not Mars.
EM-1 is (currently) planned to go into a distant retrograde orbit (DRO) around the Moon. At some point in the mission it is planned to be some 40,000+ miles beyond the moon. So, Ed is entirely correct when stating that EM-1 is planned to go "thousands of miles beyond the Moon".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/07/2017 12:24 pm

And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST.


I said powerpoint payload are disappearing.
Europa Clipper and ATLAST are looking at non SLS vehicles.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/07/2017 12:42 pm
Let's keep the crap posts out of this forum. Thread trimmed.

If you're hear to post LOL one liners or liberally use the word Pork, don't bother. It's boring, and wastes people's time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/20/2017 12:59 pm

And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST


ARRM and Europa lander are going to disappeared
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 03/20/2017 02:00 pm
The SLS/Orion will be used put modular DSH in place, should take it to EM4-EM5. Late 2020s to launch a large single habitat/vehicle that will be tested in Cislunar before being used for Mars. Plans are in motion for initial DSH missions EM2-3  , decisions need to be made in 2017.  Funding? See DSH thread. Commercial vehicles will be used where available, a crew vehicle could allow for more than 1 mission a year to DSH.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 03/20/2017 05:09 pm

And what is this about payloads disappearing? I thought there were no payloads. I know that ARRM is on shaky ground, but that always has been the case. And the Europa Clipper was just all talk as far as I could tell. ATLAST (or similar) would be a good payload candidate, if anyone ever wanted to get a better look at all those exoplanets. But I'm not aware of any serious space telescopes in the works after JWST.


I said powerpoint payload are disappearing.
Europa Clipper and ATLAST are looking at non SLS vehicles.

No, actually you said payloads, then added the powerpoint part in a separate phrase.

Payloads are disappearing, even power point payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 03/22/2017 12:01 am
The SLS/Orion will be used put modular DSH in place, should take it to EM4-EM5. Late 2020s to launch a large single habitat/vehicle that will be tested in Cislunar before being used for Mars. Plans are in motion for initial DSH missions EM2-3  , decisions need to be made in 2017.  Funding? See DSH thread. Commercial vehicles will be used where available, a crew vehicle could allow for more than 1 mission a year to DSH.

That might suffice for giving SLS/Orion a job.  Aside from maintaining HSF and establishing the DSH there's Europa Clipper otherwise.


I was clarifying the statement by envy887, that end of the road for RS-25 just means it won't be used another another rocket, but will still be in-service on SLS for quite some time.


SLS won't be in service long.

Not forever, nor should it be.  The SLS could just be interpreted as an interim item until commercial space catches up.  As a guestimate, I wouldn't expect the SLS to be in service beyond 2030; a lifetime longer than Apollo but certainly not the STS/Shuttle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/26/2017 03:09 pm
I hadn't noticed this image of one the first completed EM-1 SLS booster segments when OATK first posted it a few days back. 

Have to say that I'm really liking the checkerboard camera targets.  ;)

It reminds me of something ...

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 02:12 pm
From NAC HEO meeting:

Quote
For the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 02:15 pm
Quote
Gerst is talking about building up this “deep space gateway” outpost using elements flown on EM-2 and later flights.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640)

Quote
He adds that Japan would like to add a module to this outpost as well, but want to keep overall concept “minimalistic.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492)

Quote
Phase 2 adds a “Deep Space Transport” to the Deep Space Gateway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096)

Edit to add:

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 10m10 minutes ago

Q: what do you mean when you say this gateway is not ISS?
Free: not permanently crewed, not a large system or vehicle.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 02:19 pm
Quote
Plans for future missions for Phases 2 and 3, through EM-11 in “2030+”:

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846726407980023808 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846726407980023808)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 02:44 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago

Jim Free: still planning a human Mars orbital mission in 2033, which may require a Venus flyby.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846733614436012032 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846733614436012032)

Edit to add:

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 4m4 minutes ago

Free says 2033 plans would not be like “Inspiration Mars”; would go into orbit around Mars, not a flyby as IM proposed.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846736099796008964 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846736099796008964)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/28/2017 02:54 pm
Interestingly, HEOMD is making guideline/assumption of one crew mission per year beginning in 2023 (assuming this is EM-3) and one cargo mission per year beginning in 2027...sounds like the assumption is this would be additive.  (This is in Mr. Free's slides/presentation.)

Reference:
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846737045699604481
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/28/2017 03:14 pm
Related slide from Mr. Free's presentation.  It's worth noting that HEOMD scope is a couple of levels broader than SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/28/2017 03:59 pm
Quote
Gerst is talking about building up this “deep space gateway” outpost using elements flown on EM-2 and later flights.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725084102512640)

Quote
He adds that Japan would like to add a module to this outpost as well, but want to keep overall concept “minimalistic.”
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725254932287492)

Quote
Phase 2 adds a “Deep Space Transport” to the Deep Space Gateway.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846725641252868096)

Edit to add:

Quote
Jeff Foust‏ @jeff_foust 10m10 minutes ago

Q: what do you mean when you say this gateway is not ISS?
Free: not permanently crewed, not a large system or vehicle.
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808 (https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/846735578259447808)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/28/2017 04:04 pm
The original telecon sin was that someone dialed in and left their phone mic "hot," hence all the tweets about tubas...

During the semi-audible portion of Mr. Gerstenmaier's presentation, I believe I copied that the initial element in this concept would be derived from the ARRM propulsion bus...the concept graphics also seem to include the hexagonal mission module...

Attached a slide capture from this reference:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/20150521_arm_public_update.pdf

(As noted on Twitter, there will be another opportunity to hear Mr. Gerstenmaier's presentation to the full/top-level advisory council in that meeting.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/28/2017 04:26 pm
From NAC HEO meeting:

Quote
For the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...

I believe I copied notes about trying to make one of multiple 'Jupiter direct' windows starting in 2022, which is probably optimistic for a first Block 1B launch.  (Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)

Added a slightly larger capture here.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/28/2017 04:52 pm
Have Gateway plans used this Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit before?  This orbit has some stationkeeping costs, while DRO has none.

And Question No. 2:  Why not skip the Gateway buildup altogether and go straight to DST/Mars?

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 03/28/2017 06:05 pm
So the idea is to have NASA's contribution to the Gateway be basically to provide launch services with SLS, and other countries will actually build and pay for the hardware?  Anything on how ops will be managed (who runs it: NASA, or ESA, or JAXA?), and once the Gateway is done, what will it be used for, and how that will be paid for? 

There are an awful lot of TBD details in all these plans.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 03/28/2017 06:08 pm
Eric Berger's write-up:

Quote
Finally, some details about how NASA actually plans to get to Mars http://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/for-the-first-time-nasa-has-begun-detailing-its-deep-space-exploration-plans/ by @SciGuySpace

https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/846781256843038721 (https://twitter.com/arstechnica/status/846781256843038721)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 03/28/2017 06:20 pm


Interesting render there.  Instead of the plate-and-MLI MMOD that we see on the ISS modules, it looks like the metal plates have been omitted and smaller solar panels placed on the MLI.  Certainly an allowance for illustration inaccuracies, but at first glance it appears to be consistent with the lower MMOD flux beyond LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 03/28/2017 07:08 pm
From NAC HEO meeting:

Quote
For the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...

I believe I copied notes about trying to make one of multiple 'Jupiter direct' windows starting in 2022, which is probably optimistic for a first Block 1B launch.  (Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)

It is nice to see something more specifically labeled for SLS' plans.  Barring politics, Europa Clipper is going to be the test dummy for EUS.  I am unsure on the value of a lunar space station, and still find the NRO a bit odd as opposed to high orbit or DRO.  Still something reasonable to do under unsure circumstances.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/29/2017 12:17 am
During the semi-audible portion of Mr. Gerstenmaier's presentation, I believe I copied that the initial element in this concept would be derived from the ARRM propulsion bus...
A couple more references from another thread here, pointing to Anatoly Zak's work reporting on the cislunar gateway concept:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39391.msg1653734#msg1653734
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39391.msg1632326#msg1632326

Direct links; recent roundup of ISS partner discussions:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2017/20170309-nasa-iss-partners-cislunar-station.html

Power-prop bus:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/imp-ppb.html

And NASA.gov's piece from today...a bit higher level:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 03/29/2017 04:47 am
From NAC HEO meeting:

Quote
For the first time, NASA is starting to discuss SLS missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.

https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304 (https://twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/846724087946850304)
Mr. Gerstenmaier made a few references to a Europa Clipper launch on SLS, but this was during the early part of his remarks that were accompanied by tubas...

I believe I copied notes about trying to make one of multiple 'Jupiter direct' windows starting in 2022, which is probably optimistic for a first Block 1B launch.  (Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)

Added a slightly larger capture here.

Spaceref has the followup picture showing even more "planned"....

http://spaceref.com/exploration/nasas-deep-space-gateway.html (http://spaceref.com/exploration/nasas-deep-space-gateway.html)

Apparently after the Deep Space Gateway will come the Deep Space Transport.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/29/2017 12:20 pm
Bill Hill doing presentation to NAC HEO committee today says the EM-1 launch date will be adjusted (slip) in the next month or so.  (Doesn't sound like the crew study is a factor yet...obviously continuing hits to the SLS and Orion schedules.)

(Apparently Mr. Gerstenmaier said this yesterday, but it was muffled by the tuba playing.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/29/2017 12:37 pm
Mr. Hill saying that engine section structural assembly is a big challenge.  (And that's prior to outfitting, on the following chart as "integration.")
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/29/2017 12:47 pm
Mr. Hill said Core Stage is now "neck and neck" with the Orion ESM as the primary critical path to EM-1.  Schedule was down due to the welding issue and the tornado will probably take 2-3 more months.

(The graphic provides status, but I'm not sure the squares in this indicate work length or complexity...for example, cleaning the tanks vs. TPS application.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 03/29/2017 02:18 pm
Added a slightly larger capture here.

Is there a reason why the solar electric propulsion module would want to be placed in a lunar trajectory by SLS rather than it's own propulsion from a less energetic orbit?  Seems like a tremendous waste capacity of what is a very expensive chemical rocket to me...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 03/29/2017 02:35 pm
Added a slightly larger capture here.

Is there a reason why the solar electric propulsion module would want to be placed in a lunar trajectory by SLS rather than it's own propulsion from a less energetic orbit?  Seems like a tremendous waste capacity of what is a very expensive chemical rocket to me...

If there's the propellant margin on EUS to put a fully-loaded SEP module on the lunar trajectory, it doesn't make sense not to use it and save the SEP propellant for when it's needed.  Also, doing so gets the SEP module quickly out of the crowded vicinity of LEO, reducing the (admittedly small) chance for a debris strike.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 03/29/2017 02:43 pm
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 03/29/2017 03:21 pm
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?
The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well.  Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 03/29/2017 03:32 pm
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?
The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well.  Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out. 

 - Ed Kyle

Looking at the timelines involved I don't see how that is a problem.   
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 03/29/2017 04:00 pm
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?
The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well.  Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out. 

 - Ed Kyle

Looking at the timelines involved I don't see how that is a problem.

Maybe shielding the electronics and systems for the slow passage through the Earth's radiation belts would be the issue there?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 03/29/2017 11:41 pm
Slides of the NAC meeting are now available:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/mar_29_2017_hill_nac_final_3-28-2017.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 03/30/2017 02:29 am
Wouldn't habitable volume that can't provide it's own ride be more cost effective then? Why not place SEP module in MEO at the least?
The idea is to get it out of Earth's gravity well.  Left within, it might have to spend months or years crawling out. 

 - Ed Kyle

Looking at the timelines involved I don't see how that is a problem.

Maybe shielding the electronics and systems for the slow passage through the Earth's radiation belts would be the issue there?

Solar panels, cameras and navigation electronics do not like the Van Allen Belts. Even if they do not break they are aged by the radiation.

However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: psloss on 03/30/2017 06:36 pm
(Univ. Stage Adapter-based fairing also more likely than an 8.4 m fairing for early 20s, too...)
I was wrong -- Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 03/31/2017 07:02 am
Slides of the NAC meeting are now available:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nss_chart_v23.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/mar_29_2017_hill_nac_final_3-28-2017.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/nac-heoc

Looks like SEP hybrid is baselined for in-space propulsion. Not a bad choice IMO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/31/2017 08:35 am
Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.

Does that mean that it has now formally been decided to launch EC on SLS?  I had thought that for the next year or two, JPL was going to keep both options open (per Space Show interview with JPL systems engineer Chrisma Derewa (http://thespaceshow.com/show/22-aug-2016/broadcast-2763-chrishma-derewa) last August).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/31/2017 12:33 pm
Mr. Gerstenmaier says today that an 8.4m fairing would be used for Europa Clipper.

Does that mean that it has now formally been decided to launch EC on SLS?  I had thought that for the next year or two, JPL was going to keep both options open (per Space Show interview with JPL systems engineer Chrisma Derewa (http://thespaceshow.com/show/22-aug-2016/broadcast-2763-chrishma-derewa) last August).
Has not been formally decided. Both options still open. Gerst just indicated that a choice has been made with regards to payload fairing size in case Europa Clipper flies on SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 03/31/2017 02:22 pm
Maybe shielding the electronics and systems for the slow passage through the Earth's radiation belts would be the issue there?

Solar panels, cameras and navigation electronics do not like the Van Allen Belts. Even if they do not break they are aged by the radiation.

Fair enough reasons.  What would the difference be in terms of radiation exposure in a SEP tug passing through the upper radiation belts on its way to cis-lunar vs. an SEP bus based satellite circularizing from GTO to GEO?

However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.

This is what I thought as well, I suppose the statement that it can fit in a 5m fairing is an indication that they want to keep the options open to a separate launch.
A SEP tug would fit quite well for a few of the Deep Space Habitat proposals being floated, and IMO would be a much better fit than launching on SLS.

Back on topic more, the 8 meter transit spacecraft proposed to fly in a single launch with retrofitting in cis-lunar space seems to me like the best possible use of SLS and its capabilities.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 03/31/2017 08:48 pm
Quote
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.

But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS. 

Some very positive steps coming out of NASA in regards to SLS lately, I really enjoyed reading these presentations, not to mention SpaceX spectacular success re-flying a used booster.  The U.S space industry is really coming together no matter what "side" you're on.  For me, I'm on everyone's side.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 04/01/2017 12:21 am
Quote
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed. IMHO Best to treat the SEP module as a place holder. Should a payload that needs the SLS appear then the SEP can be launched using a smaller launch vehicle. A tanker containing the station keeping fuel could be launched a few years later.

But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS. 

Some very positive steps coming out of NASA in regards to SLS lately, I really enjoyed reading these presentations, not to mention SpaceX spectacular success re-flying a used booster.  The U.S space industry is really coming together no matter what "side" you're on.  For me, I'm on everyone's side.

My view are more sophisticated than that. The big advantage of the SLS is that it launch 105 tonne of genuine payload to LEO in one go. The Falcon 9 and Atlas 5 have smaller payloads. If Dragon or Cygnus are needed to accurately place the payload the genuine (customer supplied) payload drops to something like 5-10 tonne. 105/5 = 21 launches at NASA prices. ISS experience suggests that several additional launches are likely to be needed so astronauts can wire and plumb the equipment together. This quickly get expensive.

I suspect that build the spacestation on the ground and launching it in one go on the SLS is cheaper and quicker that assembling it in orbit using COTS launch vehicles.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Bob Shaw on 04/01/2017 12:40 am
A monolithic Skylab II is a great idea, except that it places all your eggs in one basket with insufficient launch cadence to retire launch risk. Flying a Mir-like core plus Bigelow modules is far less risky in terms of an overall project. SLS really adds to risk rather than reducing it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/01/2017 03:40 am
A monolithic Skylab II is a great idea, except that it places all your eggs in one basket with insufficient launch cadence to retire launch risk.

The DST is supposed to fly on the 6th SLS flight. I think that retires the launch risk quite a bit.

Quote
Flying a Mir-like core plus Bigelow modules is far less risky in terms of an overall project. SLS really adds to risk rather than reducing it.

While I am fine with either architecture (monolithic or modular) I disagree that monolithic and SLS are more risky. Sure, having a launch failure with a monolithic design would be a huge setback but with several modules the possibility of a launch failure is greater due to increased number of launches. Losing a single module to launch failure is not as bad as losing the whole DST but it wouldn't be easy to recover from. Imagine if Harmony or Destiny didn't make it to the ISS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/14/2017 06:16 pm
Article about the NASA OIG report on SLS:
http://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-foresees-additional-slsorion-delays/ (http://spacenews.com/nasa-inspector-general-foresees-additional-slsorion-delays/)

There are two items here most troubling for the SLS EM-1 to meet its Nov 2018 date. The first is that there is only 30 days of schedule contingency left. For a vehicle that has yet to even ever been stacked much less go through a flow on the pad, 30 days is a very slim margin. Meaning everything has to go just right during the LV processing at the pad once it gets to the pad. The second item is the software being critically behind schedule. Without software validated and certified in it's close to final flight form, testing of systems will be delayed in the near future. This can cascade into a multiple month slip. A validated version of the software should exist by now to support hardware in the loop testing of the avionics. This is used to validate that the software and hardware will work successfully with each other. Validation is done virtually. Certification is done with flight "like" hardware (the hardware version that will fly), Hardware-In-the-Loop testing. This is needed before the start of final assembly of the flight vehicle in case hardware has to be modified. Once assembly has been done any fixes are done in software only, unless the schedule hit is less by removing hardware and replacing with a new hardware version.

Like I said this bit on software being critically behind schedule is probably the item that causes a slip for EM-1. Hardware is actually much easier to maintain schedule. This because schedule decreases with relationship to the  number of personnel for hardware. But for software the schedule increases with added personnel. Adding personnel causes the opposite of the intention on shortening software development schedule except in a few specific cases. This is due to the learning curve and added problems when more people are added. This causes a near halt in progress. Trying to speed up software development cause software quality to drop. This hit to quality (number of bugs) is not acceptable to the SLS/Orion program. So there is no quick fix that adding extra funds will fix.

In general having a 30 day schedule pad for every 6 months is the place where you want to be to ensure you make the end date without slipping. The SLS/Orion program has only a 30 day schedule pad for 18.5 months from now to Nov 1.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 04/27/2017 07:57 pm
Quote
Senior official: NASA will delay first flight of new SLS rocket until 2019
The space agency is now likely to miss Congress' original deadline by three years.

[...]
"We agree with the GAO that maintaining a November 2018 launch readiness date is not in the best interest of the program, and we are in the process of establishing a new target in 2019," wrote William Gerstenmaier, chief of NASA's human spaceflight program.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Michael Baylor on 04/29/2017 12:14 am
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/senior-official-nasa-will-delay-first-flight-of-new-sls-rocket-until-2019/)

I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it. Yes, I am well aware that SLS is more powerful than Falcon Heavy or Delta IV Heavy. However, the first two SLS missions are going to do things that SpaceX also plans to demonstrate with their tourist trip around the moon.

Ok, now I realize that this is not comparing apples to apples. Obviously, the SLS tests would demonstrate greater potential as the rocket is much more powerful. That being said, there is still a lack of concrete plans on how to utilize the full potential of SLS, and we are still several years away from when SLS would be capable of sending humans into deep space. During that time Blue Origin will potentially join the scene, and SpaceX will be making progress on their next generation of launch vehicles. The commercial industry is going to make this progress at a much cheaper price to the US government and eventually likely overtake SLS capabilities. We could debate when that will likely occur all day, but even if it's slightly behind SLS I don't see why it matters. Each SLS flight is going to be incredibly expensive, why not just spend that money on a Europa Lander or other cool things that the commercial industry isn't as excited to invest in? Let the commercial industry handle the launch vehicles, and NASA can build the spacecraft.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: beckerjr on 04/29/2017 02:11 pm
I will be stunned if this launches before 2020...or even later. I think its going to be one thing after another with this rocket. I just don't have any confidence it can be pulled off anymore as the program exists now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 04/29/2017 02:16 pm
I think they'll launch EM 1 and Europa Clipper and then scrap the whole thing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/30/2017 09:00 am
I will be stunned if this launches before 2020...or even later. I think its going to be one thing after another with this rocket. I just don't have any confidence it can be pulled off anymore as the program exists now.

FUD.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: JAFO on 04/30/2017 09:14 am
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/01/2017 06:28 am
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)

Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 12:29 pm
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)

Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.

Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 12:32 pm
I will be stunned if this launches before 2020...or even later. I think its going to be one thing after another with this rocket. I just don't have any confidence it can be pulled off anymore as the program exists now.

FUD.

Beneath you Steven P.
Are you endorsing SLS/Orion development performance?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Michael Baylor on 05/01/2017 12:36 pm
From this SpaceNews article: http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-more-than-19-6-billion-in-2017-omnibus-spending-bill/

"The biggest winner in the spending bill is NASA’s exploration program, which gets $4.32 billion, nearly $1 billion more than the original request but similar to what the House and Senate offered in their bills last year. That total includes $2.15 billion for the Space Launch System and $1.35 billion for Orion."

 >:( Happy that NASA is getting good funding in the new budget, but I still am not sold on SLS and I don't think I ever will be. That money could be spent much more productively. You could fund a James Webb Space Telescope every two years at this rate...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 05:14 pm
NASA Watch on Twitter:
Quote
Gingrich: the old order is rebuilding the Saturn V that costs more and does less @nasa_sls #ulcats #nasa

Quote
Gingrich: I would live to see a hearing where the entrenched powers explain why they want to spend 3x as much on launches #ulcats

Me too.

Quote
Gingrich: was adamant that the low cost launch providers would compete with @NASA_SLS and that SLS would lose that competition #ulcats

Hope he gets a seat on the Space Council

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/01/2017 05:23 pm
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.
I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the Falcon Heavy program to be canceled because of the delay.

I'm not opposed to Ginrich's call for competition for SLS class launch services.  That would give ITS and New Armstrong a chance to stand up for hard scrutiny.  Neither of them would be ready for 2019, obviously, but might as well consider them for later and compete them against either Block 1B or Block 2 (before that increment of development money is allocated).  That would be one of the more interesting contract competitions in Space Age history.  I'm not sure which would win.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/01/2017 05:49 pm
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.
I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the program to be canceled because of the delay.

I'm not opposed to Ginrich's call for competition for SLS class launch services.  That would give ITS and New Armstrong a chance to stand up for comparison.  Neither of them would be ready for 2019, obviously, but might as well consider them for later and compete them against either Block 1B or Block 2.

 - Ed Kyle

You're waiting for the wrong generation of vehicles... ITS isn't remotely SLS-class, it's up to 15x larger in payload to TMI (over 450 vs ~30 tonnes). It completely dwarfs Block 2, and I can only assume New Armstrong would also.

FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch and put ICPS+Orion in LEO. 3-stage New Glenn launched expendable should be very close to the needed performance to put Orion through TLI. FH will almost certainly and NG could possibly be ready for 2019 launches.

Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO. That won't be ready in 2019, but with some incentive for ULA to actually move it along it could easily fly before Block 1B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 05:51 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/01/2017 05:54 pm
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)

Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.

Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.

Who? Boeing? You realize that 1 Boeing 787 export represents about as much income as 4 Falcon 9 exports. Just that one model, they built 1 a week average for the last decade. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 05:58 pm
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)

Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.

Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.

Who? Boeing? You realize that 1 Boeing 787 export represents about as much income as 4 Falcon 9 exports. Just that one model, they built 1 a week average for the last decade.

Boeing the aircraft builder has competition; Boeing the rocket builder for NASA doesn't.
Glad you noticed the difference I've been talking about all these years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/01/2017 06:13 pm
I wonder if it would have made a difference if a Direct-sized launcher had been mandated instead of the bloatware SLS. (Yes, I know, the tooling for the 4 segment boosters had been destroyed, but...)

Sadly not much difference, IMO. The problem with SLS is not really technical, it is the malaise and inefficiency of the contractors and certain NASA centers. And Direct would have involved the same guilty parties.

Repeat of Constellation.
Congress will never stop rewarding the proven under-performers who fund them.

Who? Boeing? You realize that 1 Boeing 787 export represents about as much income as 4 Falcon 9 exports. Just that one model, they built 1 a week average for the last decade.

Boeing the aircraft builder has competition; Boeing the rocket builder for NASA doesn't.
Glad you noticed the difference I've been talking about all these years.

I thought the whole argument against SLS was that it was not competitive . Now, there is in fact no competition. Which one is it?

edit:
Quote
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

That 4.32B includes things like NASA's human research program. Not sure why that is included in some comparison with FH. Might as well include Planetary Science as well. In which case: the FH program is not costing taxpayers 6.17 billion this year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/01/2017 06:47 pm
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.
Falcon Heavy lifts substantially less than Block 1 SLS trans-lunar.  You are supposing the addition of an ICPS upper stage to Falcon Heavy, which would never happen and might not even be possible mass-wise given the need to carry an additional 8-ish tonnes for LAS plus a lot of new interstage and fairing mass, etc..
Quote
3-stage New Glenn launched expendable should be very close to the needed performance to put Orion through TLI. FH will almost certainly and NG could possibly be ready for 2019 launches.
New Glenn is less capable than Falcon Heavy, so, also, no. 
Quote
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO. That won't be ready in 2019, but with some incentive for ULA to actually move it along it could easily fly before Block 1B.
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.  That's why I don't see such an approach being a serious contender versus the other biggies.

The ultimate SLS missions are beyond the capabilities of SLS Block 1.  The long term need is for the Block 2 capabilities.  That's where clean-sheet approaches like the giant designs contemplated by SpaceX and Blue Origin should be competed against whatever the SLS contractors can stand up, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/01/2017 06:49 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

Neither is SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/01/2017 07:06 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

Neither is SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle

Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D

Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running.  Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH.  This year...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: arsenal on 05/01/2017 07:46 pm
I have had enough with news like this to be honest. With SLS having all of these delays, the commercial industry is clearly going to overtake it.
I am still waiting for that first Falcon Heavy demonstration mission, planned for 2013, but I'm not calling for the Falcon Heavy program to be canceled because of the delay.

I'm not opposed to Ginrich's call for competition for SLS class launch services.  That would give ITS and New Armstrong a chance to stand up for hard scrutiny.  Neither of them would be ready for 2019, obviously, but might as well consider them for later and compete them against either Block 1B or Block 2 (before that increment of development money is allocated).  That would be one of the more interesting contract competitions in Space Age history.  I'm not sure which would win.

 - Ed Kyle

SpaceX is a private company. Elon sets very ambitious goals. NASA is not, and therefore they must face more scrutiny for missing deadlines. I don't care if FH is delayed. The important part is that it will almost certainly beat SLS to the pad. As I mentioned in my previous post, I know FH is less powerful, but SLS won't be doing any missions that require it's full potential for a while. Blue Origin and the next gen Falcon will likely ​be competition around the time when SLS does missions that require more power. Not worth the 4 billion a year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/01/2017 08:02 pm
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.
Falcon Heavy lifts substantially less than Block 1 SLS trans-lunar.  You are supposing the addition of an ICPS upper stage to Falcon Heavy, which would never happen and might not even be possible mass-wise given the need to carry an additional 8-ish tonnes for LAS plus a lot of new interstage and fairing mass, etc..
Quote
3-stage New Glenn launched expendable should be very close to the needed performance to put Orion through TLI. FH will almost certainly and NG could possibly be ready for 2019 launches.
New Glenn is less capable than Falcon Heavy, so, also, no. 
Quote
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO. That won't be ready in 2019, but with some incentive for ULA to actually move it along it could easily fly before Block 1B.
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.  That's why I don't see such an approach being a serious contender versus the other biggies.

The ultimate SLS missions are beyond the capabilities of SLS Block 1.  The long term need is for the Block 2 capabilities.  That's where clean-sheet approaches like the giant designs contemplated by SpaceX and Blue Origin should be competed against whatever the SLS contractors can stand up, IMO.

 - Ed Kyle

If there was a real valid need to launch ICPS+Orion to LEO, FH could probably be updated to do the job around the time Block 1A flies, nearly 2 years from now. FH has some margins available on thrust and payload, and could be updated to crossfeed, if needed. There really isn't a need for it though, as evidenced by ICPS only having one launch planned. But FH has other capabilities that compete with SLS, like Lunar Dragon launches.

New Glenn reusable is substantially MORE capable than FH reusable. And it has the option of a hydrogen 3rd stage, which Falcon Heavy does not. Even with conservative estimates for mass fraction and TWR the 3-stage version can likely get around 25 tonnes to TLI if fully expended. That's coincidentally about what Orion masses (and also almost exactly 1/2 the TLI payload of a Saturn V).

SLS may have been designed to avoid refueling, but the current plan to use it for Mars involves assembly and refueling in cis-lunar space, which has a number of disadvantages vs assembly and refueling in LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/01/2017 08:07 pm
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.

Maybe, but since NASA has never shown the trade between SLS and "distributed refuelling," it's fair to suspect that SLS may actually be designed to maximize employment.  If there is a legitimate engineering case to be made for SLS, someone should make it.  Or rather someone should have made it $15 billion ago.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/01/2017 11:49 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

Neither is SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle

Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D

Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running.  Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH.  This year...

It is more like probably most(not maybe some) of the $395M won't be spent on SLS/Orion. That is their catch-all for their BEO program that doesn't include SLS and Orion costs, which have their own budget funding accounts. Besides their human research program, which primarily consists of ground and ISS experiments, it consists of the "advanced exploration systems" division. Here is a summary for their 2015 activities:

Quote
In FY 2015, AES began a new set of activities to leverage past achievements from development work
performed from FY 2012 – FY 2014. These activities included integrated life support, progress toward advanced space suit subsystem technology, autonomous systems and operations, modular power systems,
radiation sensors, avionics and software, and instruments for the Mars 2020 mission. The crossDirectorate
robotic mission element of the ARM completed the Agency’s KDP-A and Acquisition
Strategy Meeting milestones of formulation.
AES studied options to augment Orion’s habitation and EVA capabilities for extended deep space
missions. These efforts included a solicitation called the NextSTEP Broad Agency Announcement
(NextSTEP BAA). This series of public private partnerships fund industry concept studies, limited
capability development, and participation in formulation of habitation options. As part of this BAA, AES
also funded studies and technology development work in life support, propulsion, and CubeSats for Orion
EM-1. This BAA demonstrated a unique acquisition strategy where all the selected partners are providing
up to 50 percent of the development cost.
AES completed development of three payloads to understand microgravity effects on large-scale fire
propagation in space (Saffire, I, II and III). These payloads will be integrated with the Cygnus cargo
transport vehicle. Large-scale fire demonstration on the Earth return segment of Cygnus flights will allow
us to understand the fate of a spacecraft fire at relevant length and time scales. NASA will use the
knowledge obtained from these experiments in detailed analysis and optimization for future fire
protection systems.
AES continued developing secondary CubeSat payloads in 2015 to fly on SLS in 2018. Initial mission
concept selections include Lunar Flashlight to look for lunar volatiles such as ice, BioSentinel to further
study the effects of the deep space radiation environment, and Near Earth Asteroid Scout to visit
candidate asteroids for future human exploration.
AES began to integrate advanced autonomy software, sensors, and feedback controls with advanced life
support hardware to demonstrate improved overall efficiency and increased autonomy. For example, a
controller was developed for the Cascade Distiller System (CDS), which performs a variety of water
purification tasks. The controller executes a plan to operate the CDS hardware, monitor its performance,
and take different control options if unexpected events occur. Increased autonomy and reliability are
essential for missions beyond low Earth orbit in the context of both crew time and limited
communications back to Earth.
AES completed the Instrument Accommodation Reviews for Mars 2020 mission payloads to demonstrate
oxygen production from the atmosphere and measure surface weather conditions. AES conducted humanin-the-loop testing of a short-duration space suit for in-space cis-lunar missions, such as ARM. The
testing also informs development concepts for instruments and EVA tools for demonstration on ARM to
find potentially valuable asteroid resources such as metals and water. AES also began new efforts related
to in-space manufacturing by printing new specialized tools with the 3D printer, which was recently
delivered to the ISS.
AES conducted a field test of a Resource Prospector prototype rover and integrated a sampling and
analysis payload. As part of integrated life support activity, AES accelerated work on three planned ISS
flight demonstrations: high pressure/high purity oxygen generation system, cascade distillation system for
wastewater processing, and miniature monitoring instrument for atmospheric contaminants.
ARM completed the Robotic Mission Concept Review in the spring of 2015 and the Acquisition Strategy
Meeting in August, gaining authorization to proceed to Phase A. In addition, STMD and ISS/ISRS are
leading efforts for long-lead ARM component acquisitions.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

Orion is mentioned, but only in the context of early work on a Deep Space Habitat/Gateway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/02/2017 01:37 am
"Distributed refueling" is what SLS was designed to minimize.

Maybe, but since NASA has never shown the trade between SLS and "distributed refuelling," it's fair to suspect that SLS may actually be designed to maximize employment.  If there is a legitimate engineering case to be made for SLS, someone should make it.  Or rather someone should have made it $15 billion ago.

To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.

While I'm rooting for SpaceX and Blue Origin, it will still be years before we can be confident that ITS or New Armstrong will be more than PowerPoint rockets. Once one of those looks like it would be a suitable replacement for SLS, then it would be time to discuss cancelling SLS. If neither of the commercial rockets succeed and we already cancelled SLS, then by the mid 2020s we'll have nothing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/02/2017 02:06 am
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.

In 2011 commercial launch vehicles were available that could have supported large missions with "distributed refuelling" (on-orbit refuelling or propellant depots); this alternative to SLS never seems to have been officially considered.

And even if refuelling were ruled out for reasons good or bad, why was the possibility of using commercially-managed heavy-lift rockets never considered?  Both ULA and SpaceX were saying in 2011 that they could build them.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/02/2017 02:17 am
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.

In 2011 commercial launch vehicles were available that could have supported large missions with "distributed refuelling" (on-orbit refuelling or propellant depots); this alternative to SLS never seems to have been officially considered.

And even if refuelling were ruled out for reasons good or bad, why was the possibility of using commercially-managed heavy-lift rockets never considered?  Both ULA and SpaceX were saying in 2011 that they could build them.

An architecture based on distributed refuelling could have worked or even contracting out to ULA or SpaceX for expendable heavy lift, but the only politically viable solution was SLS/Orion.

Same problem today. Until SpaceX or Blue has a viable replacement sitting on the pad, Congress will still fund SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/02/2017 02:23 am
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.

While this is true, Congress did not tell NASA to build the SLS because there were no commercial alternatives.

Quote
If neither of the commercial rockets succeed and we already cancelled SLS, then by the mid 2020s we'll have nothing.

Both SpaceX and Blue Origin are both well funded and have already proved themselves as being capable of building and operating cutting-edge launchers.  I'd say the odds none of the upcoming launchers - Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, and the ITS - not becoming operational are pretty slim.

Alternatively, the odds of the SLS becoming operational are not exactly high.  I have no doubt Boeing can build a safe launch vehicle, but that should never have been in question.  The only reason to have the SLS is because there is work only it can perform - and so far we have not seen political evidence of that in the form of funding.

Funding for FY2017 is firm now, and there is no new funding for SLS payloads.  The FY2018 budget cycle will be our next window into the future of the SLS...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/02/2017 02:25 am

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

Orion is mentioned, but only in the context of early work on a Deep Space Habitat/Gateway.

So the $.395B Exploration R&D is the rest of the Moon and Mars missions.

Space suits and Deep Space spacestation could be useful.

In previous years the R&D money paid for the development of the Morpheus vertical take-off vertical lander.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/02/2017 12:11 pm
FUD.
Beneath you Steven P.
Are you endorsing SLS/Orion development performance?

I don't think I'm in a position to endorse the development performance, but these types of delays are perfectly normal for rocket development. Falcon Heavy was first expected to first fly in 2010 (Musk said in 2008 that FH would fly in two years) and should make its first flight this year, so that's a delay of seven years! Engineers are optimists (otherwise nothing would get done) and things nearly always take longer than expected.

You're waiting for the wrong generation of vehicles... ITS isn't remotely SLS-class, it's up to 15x larger in payload to TMI (over 450 vs ~30 tonnes). It completely dwarfs Block 2, and I can only assume New Armstrong would also.

You're comparing ITS with five additional tanking flights with SLS with zero tanking flights. With two tanking flights, SLS Block II could send 130 t to Mars.

Quote
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch....

No it doesn't. FH can only send 26.7 t to GTO. Total Orion mass (including SM adaptor but not LAS and fairings) is 26.2 t. I don't know what FH TLI mass is, but its going to be a lot less than 26.7 t, perhaps 20 t.

Quote
...and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.

ICPS mass is 32.5 t with 5.2 t for the adapters. Total is 63.9 t while FH can put 63.8 t into LEO. There's also the heavier LAS and fairings of 9.0 t, compared to the normal fairing mass of 3.9 t so that would reduce the payload mass even more. So this would not work as well.

Quote
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO.

SLS with tanking flights would outperform Vulcan ACES with tanking flights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/02/2017 02:18 pm
You're waiting for the wrong generation of vehicles... ITS isn't remotely SLS-class, it's up to 15x larger in payload to TMI (over 450 vs ~30 tonnes). It completely dwarfs Block 2, and I can only assume New Armstrong would also.
You're comparing ITS with five additional tanking flights with SLS with zero tanking flights. With two tanking flights, SLS Block II could send 130 t to Mars.

Of course I am. SLS (any version) is not remotely designed or equipped to do tanking or rapid launch, and redesigning it and building all the required infrastructure for refueling and rapid launch would result in an enormous increase in cost and more major delays.

ITS and its infrastructure are/will be designed for rapid reflight and refueling. This is part of its baseline specifications, and anything that hinder that goal will be rapidly excluded from the design - a stark contrast to SLS.

Quote
Quote
FH now has enough raw performance to do the EM-1 launch....

No it doesn't. FH can only send 26.7 t to GTO. Total Orion mass (including SM adaptor but not LAS and fairings) is 26.2 t. I don't know what FH TLI mass is, but its going to be a lot less than 26.7 t, perhaps 20 t.

Quote
...and put ICPS+Orion in LEO.

ICPS mass is 32.5 t with 5.2 t for the adapters. Total is 63.9 t while FH can put 63.8 t into LEO. There's also the heavier LAS and fairings of 9.0 t, compared to the normal fairing mass of 3.9 t so that would reduce the payload mass even more. So this would not work as well.

The EM-1 SLS core stage will put ICPS+Orion to LEO. What it does thereafter is up to the ICPS. The LVSA for a 3.7m stage would be a bit lighter than for a 8.4m stage. and I'm sure SpaceX could dig up 5-10% more performance if needed. But as I noted previously, it (the ICPS and EM-1 in general) is really not needed, and FH has better things to do than launch Orion.

Quote
Quote
Even Vulcan ACES with distributed refueling would out-perform SLS to BLEO.

SLS with tanking flights would outperform Vulcan ACES with tanking flights.

ACES is being designed for refueling and greatly extended stage endurance, while EUS is not. And Vulcan will have the infrastructure to conduct a much more rapid launch cadence than SLS, even before any significant upgrades.

Refueling and endurance is probably easier to accomplish than rapid launch of SLS, so a EUS upgrade with IVF and EELV-based refueling flights would be a much more realistic and effective strategy. A refueled EUS with long endurance would be an impressive deep space stage.

Even more impressive (though not quite as realistic) would be building a refuelable EDL/ascent vehicle around EUS and turning it into a fully reusable and refuelable long endurance deep space stage. An 8.4m aluminum ITS, if you will, launched by SLS and refueled by partially reusable distributed lift.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/02/2017 05:17 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

Neither is SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle

Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D

Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running.  Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH.  This year...
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.  How much do you think he is spending to develop Falcon Heavy?  Now, add the $3.15 billion he has received from NASA (so far) for commercial crew, then add the cost to develop the Falcon Heavy/ICPS that you suggested - really a whole new rocket that would need a heavily revised launch infrastructure, etc..  This stuff is not free.

Still, OK, fine, lets assume that SpaceX and Blue Origin and ULA can propose Falcon Heavy and New Glenn and Vulcan as alternatives to developing SLS Block 2.  Let's let them propose an architecture and make their bids for SLS Block 2 40+ tonne payload blocks trans-Mars.  I'm not sure they would win.  Falcon Heavy claims 16.8 tonnes trans-Mars expendable.  New Glenn is probably 8 tonnes and Vulcan ACES 9.4 tonnes.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/02/2017 05:39 pm
The FH program is not costing the taxpayers $4.32B this year.

Neither is SLS. 

 - Ed Kyle

Exploration $4.324B
$2.15B SLS
$1.35B Orion
$.429B GSE
$.395B Exploration R&D

Maybe some of the $395M R&D won't be spent on the SLS/Orion system, but it is the only human exploration system that NASA is running.  Even if the figure was only $4B ($3.929B if it matters), that's $4B ($3.929B) more than the taxpayers are paying for FH.  This year...
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.  How much do you think he is spending to develop Falcon Heavy?  Now, add the $3.15 billion he has received from NASA (so far) for commercial crew, then add the cost to develop the Falcon Heavy/ICPS that you suggested - really a whole new rocket that would need a heavily revised launch infrastructure, etc..  This stuff is not free.

 - Ed Kyle

Without SLS, Orion (and all the associated GSE) have no reason to exist. SLS/Orion is a package deal, at the low, low cost of $4+B/year. Which in the big picture really isn't that much.

Upgrading Dragon to perform Orion missions would probably be far cheaper, a bit faster, and much more realistic than trying to lego[1] Orion+ICPS onto FH.

[1] yes, I used lego as a verb. Deal with it, Lar.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/02/2017 06:10 pm
Sorry Ed, I didn't get the point until reading your post a few times (and may still not get it).

The point is if you compare the 4 systems by tonnage to Mars, then SLS Block 2. Plus, fewer launches could make SLS Block 2 the most cost effective.

So the question is (assuming proper understanding of your point) shouldn't the comparison be between ITS and Block 2?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/02/2017 08:51 pm
So the question is (assuming proper understanding of your point) shouldn't the comparison be between ITS and Block 2?
That was my original thought, but now I'm inclined to suggest that any proposal should be weighed.  And why not?  Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2.  Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter.  My guess is that the proposers would find themselves driven toward the the big-launcher option.  My other guess is that the SLS contractors would suddenly find a way to cut that vehicle's costs to compete.  The key would be, as always, the cost of propulsion.  The cost of those new-build RS-25s looms big.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/02/2017 11:20 pm
Thanks Ed!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/03/2017 03:16 am
Falcon Heavy, Vulcan w/aces, and New Glenn, all have rapid reuse as others have noted.  SpaceX could launch an unfueled vehicle/lander for Mars, and the other two launch fuel, all within hours of each other.  A then fully fueled vehicle/lander for Mars could probably match one SLS launch.  All three would be at a lower cost, probably half the cost of SLS.  So, you may be able to launch two vehicles to Mars for the same one vehicle that SLS could launch. 

All it seems to me, that needs to be developed, is modular refueling, like a gas station.  All cars can refuel at the same pump except diesels.  SpaceX's new vehicles, Vulcan, and New Glenn will use methane.  Private industry is standardizing on fuel, especially for Mars.  NASA doesn't even have any real plans for Mars except for maybe a few landers/rovers.  Nor do they have any for a Moon station or base.  NASA is WAY behind.  Yes, SpaceX used some seed money from NASA, but they have used it wisely.  Others, not so much.  Blue Origin, none, yet are working on a 45 ton LEO launcher. 

The Augustine commission said, 50 ton launchers were enough to build an in space infrastructure without really large launchers.  We have three 40-60 ton range launchers coming on line within 2-3 years.  NASA should take the SLS money and design an in space infrastructure using these lower cost launchers that are reusable or partly reusable.  This can drastically cut costs and actually get something done. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/03/2017 07:26 am
So the question is (assuming proper understanding of your point) shouldn't the comparison be between ITS and Block 2?
That was my original thought, but now I'm inclined to suggest that any proposal should be weighed.  And why not?  Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2.  Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter.  My guess is that the proposers would find themselves driven toward the the big-launcher option.  My other guess is that the SLS contractors would suddenly find a way to cut that vehicle's costs to compete.  The key would be, as always, the cost of propulsion.  The cost of those new-build RS-25s looms big.

 - Ed Kyle
The problem is not so much the proposed competition, but the upmass requirement. I'm not convinced that there is any rational reason for wanting to have the upmass capacity of SLS Block 2 (the infamous 130 metric ton to LEO). That number came from a random study and US Congress ran with it. But hard requirements that justify this upmass capacity for SLS Block 2 don't actually exist, given that NASA is still trying to figure out just HOW to get to Mars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/03/2017 09:57 am
Falcon Heavy, Vulcan w/aces, and New Glenn, all have rapid reuse as others have noted.  SpaceX could launch an unfueled vehicle/lander for Mars, and the other two launch fuel, all within hours of each other.  A then fully fueled vehicle/lander for Mars could probably match one SLS launch.  All three would be at a lower cost, probably half the cost of SLS.  So, you may be able to launch two vehicles to Mars for the same one vehicle that SLS could launch. 

At the risk of stating the obvious, none of these vehicles have demonstrated rapid reuse or even flown, I believe Falcon Heavy, over time, will demonstrate rapid reuse, although Falcon 9 has not yet.  (It is demonstrating reentry and landing, but the first flight of a reused booster took over a year, which is not as rapid as Shuttle.)

What would be the motivation for these three companies to collaborate on a Mars mission?  Space X and ULA are currently competing with each other.  New Glenn will increase the competition.  I suspect only a government program deciding to use all three would entice them to compete, but Musk's vision does not seem to include such a plan, although I am sure he (and Bezos) would accept money from any source to stretch his own resources out to support his personnel goals.   ULA is already a 'money-grubbing contractor' who will do anything someone gives them money to do.  (caveat:  I am a defense contractor.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/03/2017 01:41 pm
Falcon Heavy, Vulcan w/aces, and New Glenn, all have rapid reuse as others have noted.  SpaceX could launch an unfueled vehicle/lander for Mars, and the other two launch fuel, all within hours of each other.  A then fully fueled vehicle/lander for Mars could probably match one SLS launch.  All three would be at a lower cost, probably half the cost of SLS.  So, you may be able to launch two vehicles to Mars for the same one vehicle that SLS could launch. 

At the risk of stating the obvious, none of these vehicles have demonstrated rapid reuse or even flown, I believe Falcon Heavy, over time, will demonstrate rapid reuse, although Falcon 9 has not yet.  (It is demonstrating reentry and landing, but the first flight of a reused booster took over a year, which is not as rapid as Shuttle.)

...

Reuse isn't required for distributed launch, just a rapid launch cadence. All those vehicles are/will be designed for a much higher cadence (at least 1 per month) than SLS (at most 2 per year).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/03/2017 02:07 pm
Funding prevents a rapid SLS launch rate.  Nothing in SLS design prohibits launching more than once every two years.  Given 2 high bays, 4 MLPs, 2 crawlers, and 2 pads, they could be launched at 4 per year.  Even the shuttle got to that rate.  The Saturn V launched 4 times from December 1968 to July 1969.

From June 4 2010 to May 2017, Falcon 9 has flown 33 times in about 71 months.  1 Every 2.15 months.  Pretty fast to be sure, but not your once per month cadence.  On the other hand, there is no reason why in a particular month, why a Falcon 9, a Falcon 9 Heavy, an Atlas V, and a Delta IV could not launch from Florida in the same month to support a given mission, if there was a requirement or even if 4 launches just happened to be scheduled in the same month.

I don't question that distributed launches give the ability to launch a lot of payloads for a proposed mission.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/03/2017 02:29 pm
Funding prevents a rapid SLS launch rate.  Nothing in SLS design prohibits launching more than once every two years.  Given 2 high bays, 4 MLPs, 2 crawlers, and 2 pads, they could be launched at 4 per year....
I'm comparing realistic planned rates for all vehicles. SLS is planned for twice per year in the mid 2020s. SpaceX, ULA, and Blue plan to have infrastructure to support roughly monthly launches of heavy vehicles in the same timeframe.

Massive funding for infrastructure could increase cadence for either, but it's not a realistic plan.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/03/2017 03:43 pm

The problem is not so much the proposed competition, but the upmass requirement. I'm not convinced that there is any rational reason for wanting to have the upmass capacity of SLS Block 2 (the infamous 130 metric ton to LEO). That number came from a random study and US Congress ran with it.

Which study?

Quote
But hard requirements that justify this upmass capacity for SLS Block 2 don't actually exist, given that NASA is still trying to figure out just HOW to get to Mars.

Agree.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/03/2017 04:17 pm
Let the commercial (and NASA contractor) market come up with their very best ideas and stand them up against SLS Block 2.  Rocket doesn't matter in this competition - reliable on-time delivery and cost matter.

Yes!  Let NASA issue a requirement and see what American industry has to offer.

Until something like this happens, SLS is unjustified and fair game for the charge of being a space-state welfare program.

Just developing the requirement would force answers to important questions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/03/2017 04:26 pm
SpaceX has already shown they can launch about 3 per month from two launch pads.  Given pad 40 and Boca Chica, they will have 4 pads.  They could probably do at least 4 per month with or without resue.  Falcon Heavies, maybe 2 per month.  The first reused one had to have "everything" checked out before reuse.  That time is going to come down with experience. 

All three competitors can launch one each per day for a trip to the moon with landing.  One with a return capsule, one with a lander and one for refueling a third stage.  Now all that will probably cost only $500-600 billion, half the SLS, probably with more capability.  Large scale refueling is the only thing that hasn't already been done. 

Also and empty stage can wait for refueling for weeks so rapid reuse isn't needed. 

Mars can be done the same way using existing upcoming vehicles and NautilusX type Mars craft, assembled like the space station using.  It was designed for 20 ton modules, now half the launches with 40 ton modules could be done with FH, NG, and Vulcan.  No need for expensive SLS. 

IF NASA wanted to, they could design and empty 100 ton Mars transport craft.  The other guys could launch fuel, supplies, and people for a trip.  They could launch a 200 or 300 ton assembled large vehicle in a 3 year period, while the others begin to refuel, and supply this large assembled vehicle for a trip to Mars. 

What is the fuel needs for a large craft, 100-200 tons of fuel.  So you need 4-6 vehicles to fuel up.  Another 100 tons of supplies and equipment, two more launches. 

Mars could be done in less that 3 years with the proper planning. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/03/2017 11:56 pm
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.
Don't need SpaceX or Blue for other options, for example ULA was talking about Atlas Phase 2 Heavy.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/04/2017 11:23 am
To be fair, SLS and Orion were reasonable ideas back in 2011. Six years ago, no one at NASA or in Congress thought commercial space would be so close to fielding large reusable rockets or even dreamed of ITS.
Don't need SpaceX or Blue for other options, for example ULA was talking about Atlas Phase 2 Heavy.
Atlas Phase 2 Heavy would have made for a Falcon Heavy class launcher given that the performance estimate for mass-to-LEO is roughly 63 metric ton for both launchers.

But that is still far from the 85+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance of SLS Block 1 (the 70 metric ton designation of Block 1 notwithstanding).

That said, SLS only makes sense when one has a need for 70+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance numbers. And other than launching the odd Orion to cis-lunar space there really is no need for such performance. The requirements for it are simply not there (NASA is still trying to figure them out).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/04/2017 03:06 pm
...
SLS only makes sense when one has a need for 70+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance numbers. And other than launching the odd Orion to cis-lunar space there really is no need for such performance.

There is no need for SLS with 70+ tonnes to LEO to launch Orion to cislunar space. Any refuelable heavy-lift architecture could do the same.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/04/2017 06:39 pm
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/04/2017 06:44 pm
Atlas Phase 2 Heavy would have made for a Falcon Heavy class launcher given that the performance estimate for mass-to-LEO is roughly 63 metric ton for both launchers.

But that is still far from the 85+ metric-ton-to-LEO performance of SLS Block 1 (the 70 metric ton designation of Block 1 notwithstanding).
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yg1968 on 05/05/2017 01:14 am
A good article by Jeff Foust:
http://spacenews.com/the-moon-is-the-gateway-to-nasas-exploration-future/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/05/2017 06:26 am
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.

And that's the advantage I see in F9/FH vs New Glenn. I'm not sure what payloads there will be in that rocket's payload range that will need frequent enough launch services.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/05/2017 08:34 am
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).

Apples to Oranges indeed.

But to give an idea: from FY2011 to FY2016 (included) NASA has spent at least $9.5 billion on SLS development alone (based on the actuals from NASA's annual budget request estimates). And the USA is still two years, and at least another $3 billion (probably more - based on budget predictions) away from having SLS ready for it's first launch. That would make over $12 billion to get a 85+ metric ton expendable launcher with no real missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
And that is just the launcher. Orion and GSE are not included in those figures. Just the launcher.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 05/05/2017 09:16 am
There is no need for SLS with 70+ tonnes to LEO to launch Orion to cislunar space. Any refuelable heavy-lift architecture could do the same.

Quoted for truth.

The only situation when you really need a 70+ton launcher is when a single undividable, unfueled piece of hardware weights 70+ tons.

There is no piece even approaching that mass in any of the proposed cislunar missions I have seen.

Any proposed mission I have seen so far can be in theory achieved by lets say, multiple Falcon Heavy launches or Atlas phase 2 launches. And it increasingly seems like it would be a lot faster and cheaper in practice, too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hektor on 05/05/2017 09:30 am
Obviously this corresponds to the Deep Space Transport from the Gerst presentation at NAC.

The need is 41 tons in TLI.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/05/2017 09:42 am


It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).

Apples to Oranges indeed.

But to give an idea: from FY2011 to FY2016 (included) NASA has spent at least $9.5 billion on SLS development alone (based on the actuals from NASA's annual budget request estimates). And the USA is still two years, and at least another $3 billion (probably more - based on budget predictions) away from having SLS ready for it's first launch. That would make over $12 billion to get a 85+ metric ton expendable launcher with no real missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
And that is just the launcher. Orion and GSE are not included in those figures. Just the launcher.

That $12B doesn't include development of the SRBs and RS25 left over from Shuttle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 05/05/2017 09:51 am
Obviously this corresponds to the Deep Space Transport from the Gerst presentation at NAC.

The need is 41 tons in TLI.

The need is for 41 tons to LEO and similar mass for an orbital stage to get it to the Moon.

This is a goal that could be quite easily achieved by 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches, and in reusable mode.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/05/2017 12:18 pm


It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Yes he did. Ed just compared a ONE TIME investment of $1 billion (for F9 stage 1 reuse) with an ANNUAL investment of $2.15 billion (for just getting SLS to the point that it can actually perform it's first mission).

Apples to Oranges indeed.

But to give an idea: from FY2011 to FY2016 (included) NASA has spent at least $9.5 billion on SLS development alone (based on the actuals from NASA's annual budget request estimates). And the USA is still two years, and at least another $3 billion (probably more - based on budget predictions) away from having SLS ready for it's first launch. That would make over $12 billion to get a 85+ metric ton expendable launcher with no real missions beyond EM-1 and EM-2.
And that is just the launcher. Orion and GSE are not included in those figures. Just the launcher.

That $12B doesn't include development of the SRBs and RS25 left over from Shuttle.
Not entirely. There was continued development of the 5-segment SRB's under the SLS contract beyond what was already done under the CxP contract.
RS-25 is inherited from STS, but all mods to make it suitable for SLS (such as modifying the J-2X controllers and beefing up valves etc, etc.) is funded thru SLS-specific contracts.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/05/2017 12:26 pm
Obviously this corresponds to the Deep Space Transport from the Gerst presentation at NAC.

The need is 41 tons in TLI.

The need is for 41 tons to LEO and similar mass for an orbital stage to get it to the Moon.

This is a goal that could be quite easily achieved by 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches, and in reusable mode.
Only if the DST is brought up in pieces or segments and the orbital stage is launched empty with subsequent launches providing on-orbit (re)fuelling. In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 05/05/2017 12:41 pm
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/05/2017 02:34 pm
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?

With Block 5, FH should be around 45 tonnes to LEO if they land all boosters downrange, but only has a 5.2m fairing.

New Glenn will also be 45+ tonnes to LEO with downrange booster landing but with a 7m fairing option and 3rd stage option.

Vulcan ACES should be pretty close to 40 tonnes (might be more like 36-38?) to LEO with SMART and upper stage on-orbit reuse, and the option for a 7m+ fairing.

SLS Block 1B cargo will have a 8.4m fairing and ~40t to TLI with no reuse and no planned option for refueling in LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 05/05/2017 08:47 pm

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?

With Block 5, FH should be around 45 tonnes to LEO if they land all boosters downrange, but only has a 5.2m fairing.

Thanks. Seems to me that a wider fairing should be easy to add if required. Or is the rocket too narrow for that?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/05/2017 09:06 pm

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?

With Block 5, FH should be around 45 tonnes to LEO if they land all boosters downrange, but only has a 5.2m fairing.

Thanks. Seems to me that a wider fairing should be easy to add if required. Or is the rocket too narrow for that?

Definitely not enough to match SLS at 8.4 meters. Perhaps to match NG/Vulcan at 7m, though that's debatable.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/05/2017 09:47 pm
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.

And that's the advantage I see in F9/FH vs New Glenn. I'm not sure what payloads there will be in that rocket's payload range that will need frequent enough launch services.

I don't think Bezos is looking at existing markets.  As I understand it, he sees New Glenn catering to new markets, beginning with LEO tourism and extending to other forms of economic activity.

There is no existing market for FH's LEO capability, but it's cheap enough that it can compete with the much-less-capable Delta IV.  I would think NG could do the same.  Maybe FH's commonality with F9 would give it the advantage, but NG might still hold its own.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/05/2017 10:36 pm
Definitely not enough to match SLS at 8.4 meters. Perhaps to match NG/Vulcan at 7m, though that's debatable.

Until there are actual payloads that need to be moved to/thru space, the SLS 8.4m diameter payload capability could be considered to be too big or even too small.  That's right, too small.

And that's because the usefulness of a transportation system is not determined by the maximum amount of payload it can carry, but what it's customers determine is the useful amount of payload needed to be carried.  But at this point the sample size for customers for the SLS is too small to determine whether 8.4m is too big, too small, or just right.

The same goes for every other space transportation system, and certainly the limited number of customers for the Falcon Heavy is an indication that price elasticity is not the only factor customers take into account for sending large payloads into space.  For instance, "need" for large amounts of mass in space could be a factor, or that once the mass from Earth is in space that the cost to operate in space is still too high.

I think some of these factors are affecting both the SLS and the Falcon Heavy, but at least for SpaceX the Falcon Heavy is a derivative of a launcher that has a robust customer backlog, so a lack of FH launches doesn't affect their production system or affect launch cadence safety.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/05/2017 11:09 pm
That's just the Atlas Phase 2 Heavy as proposed, there were further extensions with additional cores or bigger upper stages that would easily get into SLS territory. This has the additional benefit of sharing a technology and manufacturing base with an existing launcher, that has a "day job". This seems to me far more appropriate for a launcher that may not even launch once a year.

And that's the advantage I see in F9/FH vs New Glenn. I'm not sure what payloads there will be in that rocket's payload range that will need frequent enough launch services.

I don't think Bezos is looking at existing markets.  As I understand it, he sees New Glenn catering to new markets, beginning with LEO tourism and extending to other forms of economic activity.

There is no existing market for FH's LEO capability, but it's cheap enough that it can compete with the much-less-capable Delta IV.  I would think NG could do the same.  Maybe FH's commonality with F9 would give it the advantage, but NG might still hold its own.

I'm just not sure the tourism market will become large enough to sustain repeated flight costs for NG. The advantage of FH is that the cores can fly multiple times as F9 single cores, then be called upon as FH boosters when/if needed. That is a flexibility that NG just does not have.

OK, back to your regularly scheduled topic.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/05/2017 11:09 pm
They should've been building the most powerful version of SLS they possibly could, right from day one! if they are going to throw away so much expensive and arguably beautiful hardware each time with a such low flight rate, then give it advanced boosters be they solid or liquid, 5x RS-25E's and the best upper stage possible - maximize the dollar value. With Dark Knights boosters, the 5-engine corestage, aluminum/lithium & composite structures where possible and an upper stage with either 2x J-2X or 4x MB-60, the monster should get close to 140 metric tons into L.E.O. And that would be 150 metric tons with hydrocarbon boosters.

Otherwise - I'd advise 'cutting their losses' (;) :'( )and using the commercially available 'Star Fleet' of launchers - the Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and Vulcan/ACES. Just 1x expendable launch each of these boosters in a quick launch campaign 'salvo' from three separate launch pads would place 160 tons into L.E.O. in less than a week. In reusable mode, 2x launches of each of these vehicles would place into L.E.O. approximately 20-30% more mass than that. With refueling in space, that creates enormous potential.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/05/2017 11:21 pm
I had the opportunity to ask st Pad 39, to ask Space X personnel if any F9 could be used in any position. The answer was no. The core has different fixtures  and cannot serve as a booster. The boosters as I recall are interchangeable.  Part of the reason I think was the nose cone versus the 2nd stage mount.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/06/2017 12:50 am
I don't think Bezos is looking at existing markets.  As I understand it, he sees New Glenn catering to new markets, beginning with LEO tourism and extending to other forms of economic activity.

There is no existing market for FH's LEO capability, but it's cheap enough that it can compete with the much-less-capable Delta IV.  I would think NG could do the same.  Maybe FH's commonality with F9 would give it the advantage, but NG might still hold its own.

I'm just not sure the tourism market will become large enough to sustain repeated flight costs for NG. The advantage of FH is that the cores can fly multiple times as F9 single cores, then be called upon as FH boosters when/if needed. That is a flexibility that NG just does not have.

Yeah, Bezos is taking a risk on the tourism market.  But I still fancy NG's chances, because Bezos's pockets are so deep, deeper than Musk's, deeper even than NASA's.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/06/2017 04:44 am
I had the opportunity to ask st Pad 39, to ask Space X personnel if any F9 could be used in any position. The answer was no. The core has different fixtures  and cannot serve as a booster. The boosters as I recall are interchangeable.  Part of the reason I think was the nose cone versus the 2nd stage mount.

Yet the first FH flights will have boosters which previously flew as F9s. That would seem to indicate that while perhaps not being immediately interchangeable, they are certainly capable of modification to a different use. Those boosters originally had second stage mounts and now have nose cone mounts (assuming those mounts are different). They also had lateral connectors added. Perhaps this takes some dedicated time in the hangar with mechanics removing and replacing hardware. This would prevent SpaceX from doing the fast turn around they are aiming for. Cores that stay in the same configuration can make fast turn around. Cores that need to change position need some considerable shop time. Or then, maybe they are only doing this for the first experimental FH flights and once up and going cores will spend their lives in one of three configurations (F9, FH Center, FH booster) unless an urgent need requires one going back to the shop/hangar for conversion.

Maybe it's like converting a pickup truck to a small flat bed. It's possible to do it if you have to (and costs money), but it's surely something you don't want to be doing if you have some of both on hand and it isn't necessary.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 05/06/2017 07:45 am
Otherwise - I'd advise 'cutting their losses' (;) :'( )and using the commercially available 'Star Fleet' of launchers - the Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and Vulcan/ACES.

Also, mature reusable launcher could easily be capable of very high launch rates (multiple launches every week?). Now imagine two of them + Vulcan. Thats potential for thousands of tons to LEO every year for what could only be a marginal increase in total cost. These rockets will likely be chronically launch starved. Give them enough payloads, and while total cost may rise somewhat, cost per kg and cost per launch will plummet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/06/2017 08:09 am
Yes, exactly so.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/06/2017 08:59 am
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.

What I'm pointing at is that "potential" and "reality" are two different things. I'll give an example.

In the late 1990's, after ESA and Arianespace finally got Ariane 5 going reliably, they announced that an upgraded version could theoretically launch 20 metric ton to LEO. But by the time that it actually became necessary to do so (to launch ATV to the ISS) it required beefing-up of the EPS L10 upper stage and the development of a completely new payload adapter to be able to actually carry that 20 metric tons and still have the required safety margins.

Another fine example is SLS (which this thread is all about): Right now there is no payload adapter under development that can actually carry a full 70+ metric ton payload. So, that "magical" 70+ metric-ton-in-one-piece capacity of SLS block I is entirely theoretical. That's  because SLS Block 1 is not meant to actually launch 70+ metric tons to LEO. In stead it will launch much lighter payloads to BLEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/06/2017 03:30 pm
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.

What I'm pointing at is that "potential" and "reality" are two different things. I'll give an example.

In the late 1990's, after ESA and Arianespace finally got Ariane 5 going reliably, they announced that an upgraded version could theoretically launch 20 metric ton to LEO. But by the time that it actually became necessary to do so (to launch ATV to the ISS) it required beefing-up of the EPS L10 upper stage and the development of a completely new payload adapter to be able to actually carry that 20 metric tons and still have the required safety margins.

Another fine example is SLS (which this thread is all about): Right now there is no payload adapter under development that can actually carry a full 70+ metric ton payload. So, that "magical" 70+ metric-ton-in-one-piece capacity of SLS block I is entirely theoretical. That's  because SLS Block 1 is not meant to actually launch 70+ metric tons to LEO. In stead it will launch much lighter payloads to BLEO.

Those adapters won't be designed for Block 1, since it will only ever fly with ICPS . But won't Block 1B have a heavy adapter once the 8.4m fairing is done?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/06/2017 04:44 pm
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs.  One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example.  That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage.  $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/06/2017 05:08 pm
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs.  One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example.  That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage.  $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery. 

 - Ed Kyle

So, 500 people for ten years...
Let's just call it a jobs program and drop it.

Edit: corrected math
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/06/2017 05:56 pm
In reusable mode FH launches less than 20 metric ton to LEO in a single launch.

Do you have a source? Expendable Falcon Heavy launches 64 tons to LEO. Musk has said that reusability means 30-40% lower payload. Thats around 40 tons to LEO in reusable mode. Or is reusability penalty much higher for the Heavy variant when ALL the stages are reused?
Theoretically the mass-to-LEO for FH in fully reusable mode is much higher than 20 metric tons. But right now neither the upper stage, nor the payload adapter are rated for anything above 20 metric tons. The 64 metric tons to LEO in fully expandable mode is right now completely theoretical and only meant as a statement at what FH can potentially do. Actually launching that heavy a payload to LEO will require a new adapter and structural upgrades to the upper stage. Those are unlikely to ever happen because the primary missions for FH are to GTO, GEO and BLEO, with much lighter payloads.

What I'm pointing at is that "potential" and "reality" are two different things. I'll give an example.

In the late 1990's, after ESA and Arianespace finally got Ariane 5 going reliably, they announced that an upgraded version could theoretically launch 20 metric ton to LEO. But by the time that it actually became necessary to do so (to launch ATV to the ISS) it required beefing-up of the EPS L10 upper stage and the development of a completely new payload adapter to be able to actually carry that 20 metric tons and still have the required safety margins.

Another fine example is SLS (which this thread is all about): Right now there is no payload adapter under development that can actually carry a full 70+ metric ton payload. So, that "magical" 70+ metric-ton-in-one-piece capacity of SLS block I is entirely theoretical. That's  because SLS Block 1 is not meant to actually launch 70+ metric tons to LEO. In stead it will launch much lighter payloads to BLEO.

Those adapters won't be designed for Block 1, since it will only ever fly with ICPS . But won't Block 1B have a heavy adapter once the 8.4m fairing is done?
A continuation of this discussion about what are the real payload capabilities related to structural strength, there will not be any single payload for SLS that weighs more than 25mt (Orion). An Orion+SM and a DSH could have a combined weight of 35mt. So an EUS with at least that level must be the design goal. But an EUS strong enough to hold a 105mt payload is doubtful.

So what did I just indicate is that through 2030 NASA does not have any payloads that weight more than 25mt. It is just that they are going BEO. So if another LV can deliver 25mt to the orbit desired there is no real requirement for SLS. By law if there is a commercial LV capable of delivering the payload to the desired Orbit in the desired time-frame (launch date), NASA must use it unless they acquire a waiver or meet the laws exception criteria. Since these payloads are not military or reconnaissance, the national security exception does not apply. Only if the commercial LV does not meet launch date or orbit +payload weight and volume (faring size) would SLS qualify for an exception. Basiclly if there is no commercial LV that can meet the requirements.

But what if one of them can? What then? Does the SLS program suddenly have no payloads or missions?

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/06/2017 07:14 pm
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free,

In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.

Quote
while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs. 

You're under-estimating its cost, GSE cost should be part of SLS cost, so it's more like $2.6B per year.

Quote
One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example.  That just to figure out a way to recover reuse a first stage. 

Right, so reusing an operational liquid booster, which is a pioneering work nobody has done before, is "just a small example", I wonder what is a big example in your book, landing human on Mars?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/07/2017 02:20 am
It is right there.  SLS is $2.15 billion, NOT the $4.32 billion you claimed.

Elon Musk spent a cool $1 billion just on Falcon 9 first stage recovery R&D.
Are you comparing annual budget vs total spend?
Of course not.  I'm just pointing out that supposed SLS alternatives are not free, while also pointing out that SLS opponents exaggerate its costs.  One billion dollars for recovery is just a small example.  That just to figure out a way to recover a first stage.  $10 million per Falcon 9 launch over an example 100 launches to recoup, not counting the lost payload (revenue) required for recovery.
I haven't seen a suggestion the SLS alternatives are free, and to me the accounting of SLS's costs seems more defensible than what you've posted above. But even if we count it via the way you prefer, the number still won't be less than, what, 7-8 billion cumulatively?

But more important than that, the cost for SpaceX to develop first stage recovery and Falcon Heavy, or for ULA to develop Vulcan and ACES, isn't NASA's problem. If NASA later wants to use a Vulcan or a Falcon Heavy, they only need to pay for that launch. You might suggest that SpaceX will recover Falcon Heavy investment over many launches, but that seems absolutely fine to me and I can't imagine why anyone would disagree. In this case NASA only pays a small part, shared with numerous other customers, and without needing to either fund beforehand or have any commitment going forward. So yes, it's cheaper for NASA even if ULA/SpaceX spend money to develop their launchers. Or in another scenario if NASA were to contract with ULA to build a 3-core Vulcan Heavy, NASA would only pay the incremental cost.

You suggest 100 launches to recoup the cost, but Falcon 9 will in all likelihood actually have 100 launches. The costs they recoup will be spread across many customers who will all be saving money relative to any other launch option. Falcon 9/Vulcan have a job to do regardless of NASA and that's a good thing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 05/07/2017 02:29 am
Right, so reusing an operational liquid booster, which is a pioneering work nobody has done before, is "just a small example", I wonder what is a big example in your book, landing human on Mars?

*COUGH* SpaceX
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/07/2017 02:26 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/07/2017 02:53 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.

 - Ed Kyle

NASA was buying services, just as it has (for many billions of dollars) from ULA -- private decisions were made to reinvest or not the revenue from those purchases.  The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG.  Reuse technology is not only free, but is hugely benefiting NASA by proving technology (such as supersonic retro-propulsion) that they hadn't gotten around to, yet is critical for their #JourneytoMars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/07/2017 03:10 pm
Back to payloads, payload adapters, and upper stages.  As someone said, SLS is not capable of anything, (currently), but the 25-35 ton Orion launch.  The EUS, maybe, but does anyone know? 

F9 expendable is capable of what 20-25 tons.  For FH it would require a stronger upper stage, maybe that is what they are working on with a reusable or recoverable upper stage, for the proposed 40-60 ton range.   Does anyone know about this also? 

For that light a payload, SLS will not be needed due to launch expense alone, not counting development. 

Seems like the NASA has spent a fortune developing SLS, and nothing developing payloads, adapters, and having an upper stage ready for deep space operations to take advantage of the SLS potential capabilities. 

Mars, or the moon could have been done with a Nautilus-X with 20 ton modules with existing rockets, all the money used for SLS could have been used building modules and the in space infrastructure for Nautilus-X and we could have been to Mars by now. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/07/2017 03:26 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.

 - Ed Kyle

NASA was buying services, just as it has (for many billions of dollars) from ULA -- private decisions were made to reinvest or not the revenue from those purchases.  The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG.  Reuse technology is not only free, but is hugely benefiting NASA by proving technology (such as supersonic retro-propulsion) that they hadn't gotten around yet is critical for their #JourneytoMars.
"The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG."

That's just plain not true. COTS was about developing new cargo transportation. SpaceX got nearly $400 million from NASA for development of the Dragon and the Falcon 9.

The actual resupply services were bought later, the CRS program, SpaceX got $1.6 billion for the CRS1 contract.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/07/2017 03:38 pm
That's just plain not true. COTS was about developing new cargo transportation. SpaceX got nearly $400 million from NASA for development of the Dragon and the Falcon 9.

Read the GAO report from 2011 that outlines the COTS milestones (report here (http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/126310.pdf)).  On page 13 of that report you'll see that every milestone is related to Dragon, and none are related to Falcon.  Nor did NASA pay for any Antares development thru the COTS program.

So no, the COTS program did not pay for ANY Falcon 9 development - that was for SpaceX to fund on their own.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/07/2017 03:51 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.

 - Ed Kyle
Wrong. NASA poured $396 million into SpaceX to make Dragon happen. That was their COTS investment, and SpaceX used it for Dragon only.
SpaceX invested $454 million of their own money into COTS. Approximately $300 million was used to develop Falcon 9 out of their own pocket, with the remaining ~ $150 million going into Dragon, supplementing the $396 million NASA investment.

With COTS complete NASA ordered (ultimately) 20 operational CRS (1) missions from SpaceX. That cost billions indeed (approx $3 billion in total), but that was not for development but paying for a service provided, much like you have to pay for a taxi to drive you home.

The first time SpaceX actually took money from NASA to pay for (continued) Falcon 9 development was not under COTS, but under the Commercial Crew Program. More specifically CCtCAP. That was $ 440 million for combined continued development of Falcon 9 and (crew) Dragon. The $75 million provided to SpaceX under the earlier CCDEV2 phase was for crew Dragon development only (for an integrated launch escape system).

And most of the funds provided to SpaceX under CCtCAP are for the six operational crew rotation missions. The majority of the remainder is for finishing development of Dragon 2. Only a small part of the CCtCAP funds are being used to make Falcon 9 suitable for flying crew.

All-in-all, the total investment of NASA into SpaceX for the development of Dragon, Crew Dragon and Falcon 9 will be slightly less than $2 billion (and not billions as you presume). A bargain considering that NASA got/gets no less than 2 cargo vehicles (cargo Dragon and the cargo version of Crew Dragon), one crew vehicle (Crew Dragon) and two launchers (given the fact that Falcon 9 v1.1 - and subsequent versions - was a completely new vehicle compared to Falcon 9 v1.0).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/07/2017 05:07 pm
Back to payloads, payload adapters, and upper stages.  As someone said, SLS is not capable of anything, (currently), but the 25-35 ton Orion launch.  The EUS, maybe, but does anyone know? 

F9 expendable is capable of what 20-25 tons.  For FH it would require a stronger upper stage, maybe that is what they are working on with a reusable or recoverable upper stage, for the proposed 40-60 ton range.   Does anyone know about this also? 

For that light a payload, SLS will not be needed due to launch expense alone, not counting development. 

Seems like the NASA has spent a fortune developing SLS, and nothing developing payloads, adapters, and having an upper stage ready for deep space operations to take advantage of the SLS potential capabilities. 

Mars, or the moon could have been done with a Nautilus-X with 20 ton modules with existing rockets, all the money used for SLS could have been used building modules and the in space infrastructure for Nautilus-X and we could have been to Mars by now.
If NASA had focused on payloads for commercial LV instead of SLS they would have been limited to 20t to LEO With LVs being Atlas, D4H and Ariane 5 as that was all that existed in this class around 2009 and all very expensive LVs. Would also have needed in space refueling and depots which is good thing, but being NASA very expensive.

Still would needed a way to launch humans and to get them to BLEO. This might be Orion to LEO ( D4H) and orbital transfer stage e.g refuelled stretched Centuar.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/07/2017 05:18 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.

 - Ed Kyle

NASA was buying services, just as it has (for many billions of dollars) from ULA -- private decisions were made to reinvest or not the revenue from those purchases.  The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG.  Reuse technology is not only free, but is hugely benefiting NASA by proving technology (such as supersonic retro-propulsion) that they hadn't gotten around yet is critical for their #JourneytoMars.
"The Falcons' and Falcon Heavys' development costs were and are free to the USG."

That's just plain not true. COTS was about developing new cargo transportation. SpaceX got nearly $400 million from NASA for development of the Dragon and the Falcon 9.

The actual resupply services were bought later, the CRS program, SpaceX got $1.6 billion for the CRS1 contract.

I do suggest you get your facts straight first. NASA did not pay for any launch vehicle development under COTS. Both Orbital and SpaceX paid for development of their launchers out of their own pockets.
Also, SpaceX got $1.6 billion for CRS1, as originally conceived. That means, 12 operational cargo missions. However, CRS has been extended twice, with the total number of CRS1 missions for SpaceX now at 20. Those additional 8 missions cost NASA an additional $1.2 billion approximately.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/07/2017 06:36 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

Seems to me if you want to count payments for Dragon to Falcon Heavy, that's a concession we can count Orion costs to SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/07/2017 07:23 pm
And all of the Constellation debacle, STS engine development, STS booster development, Mobile launcher double (soon to be triple) development, VAB development, Headquarters/Marshall Program office 'overhead', on ond on.

Anyone arguing comparable USG costs for Falcon family and the USG heavy launcher nightmare is being intellectually dishonest at best.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 05/07/2017 07:48 pm
I think perhaps we need threads for:

SLS vs SpaceX Booster Comparison.
Orion vs Dragon 2 Comparison
SLS Price Accounting
Falcon 9 and 9H Price Accounting

and trim this one to focus on SLS General discussion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/07/2017 09:45 pm
If NASA had focused on payloads for commercial LV instead of SLS they would have been limited to 20t to LEO With LVs being Atlas, D4H and Ariane 5 as that was all that existed in this class around 2009 and all very expensive LVs.

Which would have allowed ISS-sized module construction in space - which is still the benchmark for modular construction in space.

Quote
Would also have needed in space refueling and depots which is good thing, but being NASA very expensive.

Maybe you are assuming that it would be expensive because NASA would own the refueling system?

However if refueling services were competed out, and two or more providers were selected in order to keep prices competitive, then that would have provided the basis for a continuous price reduction as traffic beyond LEO increased.  I don't know what the prices would have been like to set that up and use it initially, but the advantage such a system would have over a single-launch architecture is that it would drop in price far more over time than a government-run launch system.  And over time the U.S. Government would hopefully not need to be the primary customer.

Quote
Still would needed a way to launch humans and to get them to BLEO. This might be Orion to LEO ( D4H) and orbital transfer stage e.g refuelled stretched Centuar.

The answer is to create a reusable transportation system that operates between the Earth and the region our Moon (LLO, EML, etc.).  The capsule spacecraft of today are inefficient transportation systems once they leave LEO, and the Orion is an expendable transportation system so it's highly inefficient from a cost standpoint.

If humanity wants to expand out into space, we need to transition all of our transportation segments into reusable transportation systems.  SpaceX has plans to do this with their Interplanetary Transportation System (ITS), but for competition and redundancy we need to have other entities doing this too - and it doesn't have to be one company that provides everything like SpaceX is doing, it could be different companies that focus on different transportation segments (like we have for terrestrial transportation).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/07/2017 09:54 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

 - Ed kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2017 08:31 am
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

SLS on the other hand is not free to the government. And IMO that is not the issue with SLS. After all, it was the government that decided that it should develop it's own heavy launcher. Neither does the growth-path (from 70 mt to 130 mt to LEO) bug me, or the use of 1970's-base technology.
What bugs me about SLS is the flat-funding profile. Here you have a "written-in-law" BFR but the entity that wrote it into law, and even included a first-flight deadline into the law, fails to properly fund it.
By the time SLS finally flies in 2019 (possibly 2020) it will have been in development for (nearly) a decade. That's the same time-frame as STS, but for a much simpler vehicle. That's nuts!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/08/2017 10:21 am
The flat funding profile is a direct result of the SLS/Orion mission... send dollars to the chosen contractors for work in the chosen districts.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/08/2017 11:39 am
The flat funding profile is a direct result of the SLS/Orion mission... send dollars to the chosen contractors for work in the chosen districts.
And do so (almost) indefinitely...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/08/2017 12:45 pm
In terms of development cost, FH and NG is free to the government, and Vulcan is free to NASA. Any comparison between FH/NG/Vulcan vs SLS should take this huge development cost difference into account.
Falcon 9 exists because of NASA.  Until SpaceX won its first COTS contract, it was a little company in a small warehouse that had one failed Falcon 1 launch attempt on its resume.  NASA poured money - ultimately billions of dollars - into the enterprise to make Falcon 9 and Dragon happen.  Not free.
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.
No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

 - Ed kyle

So exactly how much as the USG been paying each year for the last 6 or so years for specifically for Falcon Heavy development? Everything else the government has funded has been for other specific capabilities. Even if that other funding enabled FH, it was NOT funding for FH.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 05/08/2017 11:50 pm
No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.
Problem being, if we apply this "would not exist if not for" test to SLS, then we include the costs for CxP and the Shuttle in SLS. Because SLS would not exist if not for the Shuttle. I don't think this analysis makes sense and I don't want to use it, but if it's your analysis of choice then it applies both ways.

My take would be that NASA paid for COTS and it got COTS. The payments (milestones etc) I am aware all had a purpose under COTS. NASA wasn't paying for another launcher at the time, and if they weren't at the time then that fact doesn't change retroactively when SpaceX builds another launcher out of pocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/09/2017 01:13 am
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.

Shall we apply the same measure to SLS?

Next Ed will give us his rendition of how much SX owes the USG for accumulated LRE R&D funds expended since the days of Goddard ... Ed, you've taken this too far.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 05/09/2017 01:25 am
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.

Shall we apply the same measure to SLS?

Next Ed will give us his rendition of how much SX owes the USG for accumulated LRE R&D funds expended since the days of Goddard ... Ed, you've taken this too far.
Page after page of SpaceX discussion in the SLS board is where it has been taken too far.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/09/2017 06:39 am
There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.

Shall we apply the same measure to SLS?

Next Ed will give us his rendition of how much SX owes the USG for accumulated LRE R&D funds expended since the days of Goddard ... Ed, you've taken this too far.
Page after page of SpaceX discussion in the SLS board is where it has been taken too far.

Agreed. If it really troubles you, request a thread trim. That's what "Report to moderator" is for (amongst other things).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/10/2017 05:39 pm
Quote
SLS LOX Dome Dropped And Damaged Beyond Repair
By Keith Cowing on May 10, 2017 1:31 PM.

Keith's note: Sources report that a LOX dome for the SLS under construction was dropped and is damaged beyond repair. The accident also damaged some tooling. There are reportedly enough parts to build a new LOX dome but that is going to affect a lot of schedules. David Beaman is heading up an investigation team. More to follow.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/05/sls-lox-dome-dr.html (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/05/sls-lox-dome-dr.html)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/10/2017 06:00 pm
 :o Hollywood couldn't write a more compelling script for this tragedy.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: The_Ronin on 05/10/2017 06:24 pm
First, welds... now this... What could go wrong is going wrong.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 05/10/2017 06:27 pm
Do we laugh or cry?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 05/10/2017 06:42 pm
Do we laugh or cry?

As Kosh would say, "Yes."

But seriously, there wasn't anybody hurt, was there?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2017 07:18 pm
From Jeff Foust:
Quote
NASA Marshall confirms that an SLS LOX qualification tank dome was damaged in an incident last week at Michoud. Investigations underway.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/862385089065496576
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/10/2017 07:26 pm
From Jeff Foust:
Quote
NASA Marshall confirms that an SLS LOX qualification tank dome was damaged in an incident last week at Michoud. Investigations underway.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/862385089065496576

Well, at least it was the qualification article's dome and not the flight tank's dome. That is somewhat of a positive. But the real positive is that no one was hurt or injured.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2017 07:31 pm
Since it was a component of the qual tank, it hasn't been integrated and performed its function.  Will have to be redone, same expense/delay as if it was a flight tank dome.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ChrisGebhardt on 05/10/2017 07:55 pm
Since it was a component of the qual tank, it hasn't been integrated and performed its function.  Will have to be redone, same expense/delay as if it was a flight tank dome.

I normally wouldn't ask this, but given the timeline compression and schedule pressure issues we now know occurred with the LH2 tank welds, have they already welded the LOX dome for the flight tank?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/10/2017 08:22 pm
A bit more detail:

Quote
The hardware damaged was the aft or bottom dome of a test Liquid Oxygen Tank, Marshall Space Flight Center spokeswoman Kim Henry said Wednesday. "There was some damage to it," Henry said, but it was not welded to the rest of the tank when the accident happened.

Taken from: http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/05/test_fuel_tank_for_space_launc.html (http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2017/05/test_fuel_tank_for_space_launc.html)

The piece confirms no injuries.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/10/2017 08:28 pm
Since it was a component of the qual tank, it hasn't been integrated and performed its function.  Will have to be redone, same expense/delay as if it was a flight tank dome.

I normally wouldn't ask this, but given the timeline compression and schedule pressure issues we now know occurred with the LH2 tank welds, have they already welded the LOX dome for the flight tank?

From a 9/19/2016 posting:
Quote
Caption: The liquid oxygen tank is the second tank that makes up the core stage, which towers more than 200 feet tall with a diameter of 27.6 feet. The liquid oxygen tank holds 196,000 gallons of the rocket's oxidizer -- liquid oxygen -- which is cooled to minus 297 degrees Fahrenheit. Earlier in the year, engineers completed the liquid oxygen confidence article, which is identical to the test and flight version of the tank that will be welded in the coming weeks.
Credits: NASA/Michoud/Steven Seipel
emphasis mine

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31740.msg1586158#msg1586158

So, about 8 months ago, they were weeks away from welding the test(qual) and flight tanks.  The VAC issue only prevented stacking/welding the full tank, so I suspect the pieces were queued up and ready to be assembled on the VAC.  They stopped the welding process last fall because of the weld issues as you've reported... but probably not before the qual and flight lox dome(s) were done. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/10/2017 08:59 pm
Article today on The Verge:

NASA is losing the race to build a better rocket (https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/10/14886570/nasa-space-launch-system-rocket-ula-blue-origin-spacex) - The Verge

A passage from the article:

"Some experts argue that it’s these numbers [estimated $/launch] we should use to measure a rocket’s merit: not how much it can carry, but how much it costs and how frequently the vehicle is expected to launch. If those are the standards, then the SLS isn’t necessarily the best vehicle to pull off ambitious goals in space."

Of interest too is a NASA document they reference in the article from 2010 called "Launch Propulsion Systems Roadmap" (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/500393main_TA01-LaunchPropulsion-DRAFT-Nov2010-A.pdf), where they define classes of launchers.  I know there is always debate about how to class launchers, so here is NASA's definition:

Small:  0-2 t payloads
Medium:  2-20 t payloads (1.8-18.1mT)
Heavy:  20-50 t payloads (18.1-45.4mT)
Super-Heavy:  > 50 t payloads (45.4mT+)

However it's not clear from the section this chart is in (TA01-7) what the destination is - i.e. is it that mass to LEO, or some other destination.  So YMMV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/10/2017 09:24 pm
Repeated issues.  Perhaps time for a management shakeup, starting on the contractor side.  This entire program seems in serious need of a swift kick in the posterior, and soon.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/10/2017 09:40 pm
I know there is always debate about how to class launchers, so here is NASA's definition:

Small:  0-2 t payloads
Medium:  2-20 t payloads (1.8-18.1mT)
Heavy:  20-50 t payloads (18.1-45.4mT)
Super-Heavy:  > 50 t payloads (45.4mT+)

However it's not clear from the section this chart is in (TA01-7) what the destination is - i.e. is it that mass to LEO, or some other destination.  So YMMV.

The executive summary parenthetically defines 't' as metric ton (p. TA01-1).  The classes are then consistent with those used by the Augustine Committee for LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 05/10/2017 09:58 pm
 I've stated in my bumbling way repeatedly on many threads, as I'm sure others have, that, just what Ed mentioned a post or two back, that the SLS program needs badly to be whipped into shape. If General Bolden and the previous gang Really didn't want this program they should have told their bosses to veto NASA's budget... Resign in the middle of a congressional hearing...go on late night TV and say "I quit!" Now, I think Gen. Bolden is great, and I love SLS, but this and especially Orion are now just, well , it's breaking my heart. I still want to see this country and it's [ excuse the bad pun] international and commercial partners put together a synergistic plan to really get something going big-time up there; but increasingly this whole thing is wack. Don't , especially now, change up the plan put and some people up on EM-!, but try hard to get things back on a better track! Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc. If not - can it all and hope the new space moguls succeed.
  Or am I over-reacting to normal technical problems in a program of this magnitude that has never been properly funded the right way? It's almost like a "Fake News" scenario to get SLS killed off!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/10/2017 10:01 pm
SpaceNews article includes:

Quote
Henry said that the incident was classified as a “Type B” mishap. Such a mishap, according to NASA documents, covers incidents that cause between $500,000 and $2 million in damage. No one was injured, she said.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-investigating-damaged-sls-tank-section/ (http://spacenews.com/nasa-investigating-damaged-sls-tank-section/)


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 05/10/2017 11:39 pm
No one was hurt, the assembly room was evacuated for some weird safety reason, and some machinery was damaged.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2017 12:42 am
Repeated issues.  Perhaps time for a management shakeup, starting on the contractor side.  This entire program seems in serious need of a swift kick in the posterior, and soon.

 - Ed Kyle

Curious that you chose the contractor side... thought NASA was ringleader in this show.
But yes, swift kick is long overdue.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/11/2017 12:44 am
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.


SpaceX contracts with NASA have a estimated nominal value of roughly $8 billion. All their other contracts combined so far (including military) roughly amount to $4 billion(not counting the dragon tourist flight which has an unknown dollar value). So, most of SpaceX revenue and presumably what they used to pay for the R&D came from NASA.

Anyways, I ran some scenarios comparing Falcon with maximum re-use and on orbit assembly at GTO (SEP from GTO has been demonstrated while from LEO is a subject of debate) with SLS single launch architecture and the difference in cost is marginal.

Falcon Heavy:
(http://i.imgur.com/T69b7Gu.png)

Falcon 9 (only reused cores):
(http://i.imgur.com/QN2Bxw8.png)

Falcon 9:
(http://i.imgur.com/rkRpM6b.png)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/11/2017 12:52 am
A few posts ago you were saying GSE and Orion couldn't be included in SLS costs, but now you're saying Falcon Heavy costs include all payments to SpaceX even when they're for totally different things like Dragon.

No, that is not what I am saying.  Someone said "FH .. is free to the government".  I pointed out that it, and its Falcon 9 predecessor, would not even exist were it not for the government.

There is no telling where SpaceX would have wound up had NASA not selected SpaceX for COTS. SpaceX finished the Falcon 1 program entirely out of their own pocket and the succesfull flights 4 and 5 of Falcon 1 resulted in several non-government, commercial contracts for launching payloads into orbit. SpaceX might just have survived, and likely even would have developed Falcon 9 as we know it today. Indicator is that under COTS, SpaceX developed Falcon 9 out of their own funds with the NASA COTS funding solely being used for Dragon.
So, IMO, there is no solid ground for your statement about FH and F9.

Indeed. USG is just one of SX's customers. If we were to divide up a portion of the accumulated LV revenues as absorbing dev costs, the USG would be a small share.


SpaceX contracts with NASA have a estimated nominal value of roughly $8 billion.
I was talking about the accumulated LV revenues , not CRS and other NASA service revenues, which have and embedded launch service cost that is not directly billed.

You can't do total revenues as its apples vs oranges all over again.

Now, if you want to compare SX/OA mission revenues with SLS mission revenues, we could do that, and it wouldn't look nice as a comparison.

Edit/Lar: PoliteSG_3000 engaged.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2017 12:55 am
What about the $20B of SLS development costs (amortized over 10? launches) and the huge ground operations that need to be supported continually for the annual SLS launch?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/11/2017 01:46 am
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.

Where in the world would the budget for that come from?

SLS's design spec calls for a production capability of two per year maximum.  The spec requires a capability of three launches per year, but only on a surge basis (see p. 9 of the attachment).  The only cost estimates we've seen (attachment to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592)) suggest that launching two SLS's per year (one of them being the smaller, 70-tonne version) would cost $4 billion just for the rockets and ground systems, never mind payloads.

Quote
Or am I over-reacting to normal technical problems in a program of this magnitude that has never been properly funded the right way?

It seems to me that SLS's very low production rate is a big part of the problem.  If you've got the budget to produce only one rocket every few years, then it's a big problem for the program is something goes wrong with that rocket.  And by what standard has it not been properly funded?  Appropriations have exceeded the requirements estimated in 2011 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39570.msg1490576#msg1490576).  If the money isn't sufficient, it's a matter of cost overruns rather than insufficient budgeting.

EDIT:  Replaced attachment with more up-to-date version (Rev. E in place of Rev. D), and updated relevant page number in body accordingly.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/11/2017 02:28 am
Anyways, I ran some scenarios comparing Falcon with maximum re-use and on orbit assembly at GTO (SEP from GTO has been demonstrated while from LEO is a subject of debate) with SLS single launch architecture and the difference in cost is marginal.

Here's an alternative scenario: Cancel SLS saves $2.5B per year, $10B for 4 years. Allocate $6B to build 2 DST (just in case FH drops one, also 2x cost to speed things up), allocate $3B to build 2 boost stages to boost DST from LEO to GTO (Exact configuration irrelevant to the discussion, I assume the cost is high enough, if not let me know), use the remaining $1B to block buy 4 expendable FH and associated engineering changes (stronger structure to take a 48t payload, bigger fairing if necessary), 2 to launch DSTs to LEO, 2 to launch boost stages to LEO. This gives you DST in GTO by 2021 with redundancy in case of launch or boost failure.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/11/2017 02:48 am
I've stated in my bumbling way repeatedly on many threads, as I'm sure others have, that, just what Ed mentioned a post or two back, that the SLS program needs badly to be whipped into shape.

As a manufacturing scheduling professional, I would argue that the SLS program is not "behind" schedule, because there was never a real schedule to begin with.  The only guidance from Congress for need dates was the Dec. 31, 2016 date for initial operational capability.  However since NASA and the SLS contractors never bought into that date, or any date since they were not consulted on the design, there are NO data points that can be used to determine schedule or budget performance.  Thank Congress for that.

As to the LOX dome manufacturing mishap, stuff like that happens when you're pushing the bleeding edge.  Not that it excused it, but that there needs to be enough margin in the schedule to recover.  Boeing and/or their contractor should foot the bill for the rework or replacement, so it shouldn't be a hit for NASA's budget.

Quote
If General Bolden and the previous gang Really didn't want this program they should have told their bosses to veto NASA's budget... Resign in the middle of a congressional hearing...go on late night TV and say "I quit!" Now, I think Gen. Bolden is great, and I love SLS, but this and especially Orion are now just, well , it's breaking my heart.

Revisit your history on how the SLS was created.  Obama willingly accepted the creation of the SLS and Orion in order to save the ISS and create the Commercial Crew program.  At the time I said I would have taken that deal, and I still would have.

And Bolden has been a vocal supporter of the SLS, so I don't see where you think he hasn't been supportive.  Plus, Bolden has been a great overseer of NASA programs, driving down their average age and cost growth (see chart here (https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-309SP)).

The flaws in the SLS program can be directly attributable to a bunch of politicians designing a rocket, and mandating that it use a specific workforce and capabilities.  It was obvious from that start that it was going to have challenges.

Quote
I still want to see this country and it's [ excuse the bad pun] international and commercial partners put together a synergistic plan to really get something going big-time up there; but increasingly this whole thing is wack.

The SLS was never part of an effort to do things in space.  If that were true then Congress would have funded such a program years ago.  As it is it's too late to fund such a program without having the SLS sit around with nothing to do other than "test flights".

Quote
Don't , especially now, change up the plan put and some people up on EM-!, but try hard to get things back on a better track! Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc. If not - can it all and hope the new space moguls succeed.

There are no funded programs to do what you suggest for the same reasons we haven't returned to the Moon in 40 years - there is no reason for the U.S. Government to spend that much money doing that.  That's an honest answer, not a political one, because every politician will rattle off many more priorities here on Earth that take precedence.

Quote
Or am I over-reacting to normal technical problems in a program of this magnitude that has never been properly funded the right way? It's almost like a "Fake News" scenario to get SLS killed off!

Yes, you are over-reacting.  No, this is not "fake news".  Congress controls all the money for NASA, so focus on why they won't fund what you think NASA should do.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 05/11/2017 03:24 am
The thing that bothers me is the fact that we have now had three cases of things going wrong with this tank structure's building process.  First, the super-expensive state-of-the-art welding fixture was installed wrong and that had to be re-done.  Apparently enough attention wasn't being paid to the floor.  Second, we have the welding problems.  Third, we now have a dome somehow being "dropped" and it will have to be replaced.  Leaving aside the economic and political arguments for or against SLS, the process at Michoud is not inspiring a lot of confidence in me.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Stan-1967 on 05/11/2017 04:48 am


Anyways, I ran some scenarios comparing Falcon with maximum re-use and on orbit assembly at GTO (SEP from GTO has been demonstrated while from LEO is a subject of debate) with SLS single launch architecture and the difference in cost is marginal.

Falcon Heavy:
(http://i.imgur.com/T69b7Gu.png)

Falcon 9 (only reused cores):
(http://i.imgur.com/QN2Bxw8.png)

Falcon 9:
(http://i.imgur.com/rkRpM6b.png)

This model while technically accurate, is highly likely to be 100% wrong in how the capability of F9 or FH would be utilized to launch a 48ton module in segments.   For both FH & F9 the path would be to select the most economical reuse ( or no reuse) options to get 48 tons to GTO.   FH utilized in side cores RTLS & DPL on the center core would likely be able to get 48 tons to GTO in 3 launches.  Expending the center core might enable only 2 launches. 

Refigure your model with FH & F9 optimized for the most economical path of getting 48 tons to GTO and you will see the saving are much better than "marginal".

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 05/11/2017 05:20 am
  Thanks, Coastal Ron - I actually appreciate most of what you are saying, to a certain extent. It seems almost like "a right-of-passage" to have you give me a good going-over. ;D  We probably differ very much on what the role of government should be going forward. In any case it's frustrating that such an important project could be so awesome and yet so troubled at the same time. By troubled I mean the lack of an "end-game"; a clear rationale for what you are going to do with it. Putting the cart before the horse...
   I always thought that the idea that ISS would be splashed prematurely to fund further adventures was not really a serious suggestion- that when that time got near the budget-people, Congress and whatever administration was in town would get together and adjust the $ appropriately to keep it going. I also want to be clear that I think Gen. Bolden did a damn good job keeping NASA afloat during a very tense time. The question now is do we try to make the best of it, or just waste all the time, money and effort that have been put into it already? I have no doubt, on a technical level these problems with the tank can be overcome- good luck to the people working the problems!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/11/2017 06:57 am
Well, its not like other companies have dropped or damaged space qualified hardware before. Case in point, SpaceX damaging all the nozzles on a Falcon 9 first stage. Accidents happen. I'm sure Michoud will learn from the mistake so that it doesn't happen in future.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FutureSpaceTourist on 05/11/2017 07:38 am
The question now is do we try to make the best of it, or just waste all the time, money and effort that have been put into it already?

I'm sorry, this is the sunk cost fallacy. The issue is how much more money will it take to finish it and given budgetary constraints is there the money subsequently to fly it and build payloads for it that actually need SLS?

FH will be flying significantly before SLS and at an order of magnitude less launch cost. Blue are also likely to be well advanced with NG (especially given the mounting SLS delays). Yes SLS carries more payload but to what end? Who is going to pay for any payloads?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Arch Admiral on 05/11/2017 08:13 am
I think the main reason for the many technical problems with SLS (and Orion) is that NASA and its pet contractors just don't have people with proper engineering and management skills anymore. A booster with no payloads or meaningful destinations is just not going to attract top quality younger personnel, and the senior NASA managers are all veterans of Shuttle operations with no hardware development experience. Remember that one stated purpose for Ares I was to re-acquire these skills before proceeding to Ares V.

The whole program is showing all the classic signs of imminent cancellation:

-- a constant series of technical screw-ups

-- ratio of schedule slips to calendar time approaching 1.0

-- increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense: ARM to an "International Lunar Station" that is nowhere near the Moon to a "Space Gateway" that is only manned 46 days a year. The latest payload is a 41-ton solar-ion drive deep space ship that is supposed to make a pointless flyby of Mars. It seems to exist only as an artist's concept.

-- the swing to re-usability in commercial boosters makes the whole idea of expending SSMEs and SRBs that were reused in the Shuttle program seem like an idiotic step into the past.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/11/2017 08:34 am
I think the main reason for the many technical problems with SLS (and Orion) is that NASA and its pet contractors just don't have people with proper engineering and management skills anymore. A booster with no payloads or meaningful destinations is just not going to attract top quality younger personnel, and the senior NASA managers are all veterans of Shuttle operations with no hardware development experience. Remember that one stated purpose for Ares I was to re-acquire these skills before proceeding to Ares V.

The whole program is showing all the classic signs of imminent cancellation:

-- a constant series of technical screw-ups

-- ratio of schedule slips to calendar time approaching 1.0

-- increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense: ARM to an "International Lunar Station" that is nowhere near the Moon to a "Space Gateway" that is only manned 46 days a year. The latest payload is a 41-ton solar-ion drive deep space ship that is supposed to make a pointless flyby of Mars. It seems to exist only as an artist's concept.

-- the swing to re-usability in commercial boosters makes the whole idea of expending SSMEs and SRBs that were reused in the Shuttle program seem like an idiotic step into the past.
Wrong on nearly all account. Compared to the kludge that was Ares I it has been a very trouble-free development program for SLS. The basic engineering for SLS is sound. That was not the case with Ares I.
There have been only 3 major screw-ups with SLS, and they all concern the Core Stage:
- VAC vertical misalignment issue (Miscommunication between primary contractor and sub-contractor)
- Core Stage welding issue due to welding pin design change (bad decision by NASA management to not wait for test results from flat plate testing)
- STA aft LOX dome drop (cause not publically known yet)

Also, SLS is a US Congress pet program and will therefor not be cancelled anytime soon, despite the schedule slips and lack of missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2017 10:06 am
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.

Problem is, the first flight will be in the early 20s... then a three-year break for rebuilding the mobile launcher.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/11/2017 10:37 am
I think that SLSP should be definitely looking at reducing the gap between EM-1 and EM-2 as much as possible. The post-flight analysis can't be significantly compressed but there must be something that can be done to turn LC-39B and the mobile launcher around faster! The delays to EM-1 must allow for more stuff that was originally scheduled for the EM-1/-2 gap to be done before EM-1 flies!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 05/11/2017 01:17 pm
 You all are making excellent points, whether or not you are SLS fans. The Admiral hit one nail on the head for me- Congress/Admin. have to get a comprehensive, expansive, inclusive, Master Plan together. No-one can see the forest for the trees. A robust Moon Base, IMHO, is the most obvious way to start bringing all these things together; there would be plenty for everyone to contribute. But not a dinky 4-man, six-man part-time hut or two; but a 25-50, maybe a 100 person base that could send out exploration parties all over the moon, do ISRU R&D, Martian tech-testing, all forms of science and astronomy, grow food, you-name-it. With the ability to support commercial projects, too. Go for broke for once! Once this is underway the commercial part will come more naturally.
 SLS can spend the next decade or so getting huge ready-to-go parts of this infrastructure up there, and then retire honorably while the New Space Rockets come along and prove themselves. ARM,DSH, etc. could be part of this, but not ends onto themselves. Did our political leadership during WW2 stay up at night thinking which tank or boat design would be best over which battle? NASA has been bogged down in the weeds too long - Let them lead, with 3P and International help a Grand Strategy already. Plus up the budget, but expect much more results! Of course if you think NASA should be canned in terms of HSF, and the government just rely on SpaceX for everything from now on then what I'm trying to say is just silly--But I've never read a S-F book where hundreds of people were going to Mars, and there wasn't anything on the Moon. [I just remembered that President Bush's VSE called for using the Moon as a staging area for the Mars campaign; is that out-moded thinking now?]
 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Johnnyhinbos on 05/11/2017 01:29 pm
It's kinda interesting that there is a constellation of aerospace companies all hitching their mars plan wagons to the SLS pony. Boeing, OATK, Aerojet. Which means, in the very best, they are betting on an extremely low cadence, and in the worst, on an empty promise.

And they all know this - which, to me, means none are actually planning on developing any hardware until SLS is a proven entity. And so, SLS is stuck with no meaningful real payload for the foreseeable future, which in turn is a nail in its own coffin. Bit of a Catch-22.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/11/2017 01:39 pm
Back in the 1960's with Saturn V, there was a real clear goal, and the Apollo F1 and J2 engines, and lunar module were all being developed at the same time in parallel.  There is no real clear goal and objective for SLS.  While we are waiting for SLS, there are no payloads being developed.  Therefore, AFTER SLS flies, there will be a 5-10 year gap until payloads are developed.  We will be going through several election cycles until then.  There may be cuts, extra money, different missions and objectives.  It is nothing but a real mess and money pit in my opinion, thus leading to no excitement or public support. 

If SLS is to continue, congress needs to quit investigating each other and everyone else, especially when nothing is going to be done, and get to doing some real work, especially on space related issues. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/11/2017 01:40 pm
It's kinda interesting that there is a constellation of aerospace companies all hitching their mars plan wagons to the SLS pony. Boeing, OATK, Aerojet. Which means, in the very best, they are betting on an extremely low cadence, and in the worst, on an empty promise.

And they all know this - which, to me, means none are actually planning on developing any hardware until SLS is a proven entity. And so, SLS is stuck with no meaningful real payload for the foreseeable future, which in turn is a nail in its own coffin. Bit of a Catch-22.

I mean aren't all those players contractors for SLS? You don't move past (or ignore) a lucrative contract.

Edit: It seems to me that part of the problem is that all of the players have a piece of SLS. If they didn't, they would be competing with each other to come up with better technology and plans. No competition = no movement, unless you are ideologically driven and a private company like SpaceX and Blue Origin.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: edkyle99 on 05/11/2017 01:46 pm
Repeated issues.  Perhaps time for a management shakeup, starting on the contractor side.  This entire program seems in serious need of a swift kick in the posterior, and soon.

 - Ed Kyle

Curious that you chose the contractor side... thought NASA was ringleader in this show.
But yes, swift kick is long overdue.
Contractors do the actual work and, thus, will likely be responsible for the mishap(s).   Look back at Apollo program history (Harrison Storms) for examples.  NASA managers also may get shifted around as part of these shakeups (e.g. Joseph Shea).

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/11/2017 02:08 pm
It's kinda interesting that there is a constellation of aerospace companies all hitching their mars plan wagons to the SLS pony. Boeing, OATK, Aerojet. Which means, in the very best, they are betting on an extremely low cadence, and in the worst, on an empty promise.

And they all know this - which, to me, means none are actually planning on developing any hardware until SLS is a proven entity. And so, SLS is stuck with no meaningful real payload for the foreseeable future, which in turn is a nail in its own coffin. Bit of a Catch-22.

I mean aren't all those players contractors for SLS? You don't move past (or ignore) a lucrative contract.

Edit: It seems to me that part of the problem is that all of the players have a piece of SLS. If they didn't, they would be competing with each other to come up with better technology and plans. No competition = no movement, unless you are ideologically driven and a private company like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

These large contractors and NASA are being sustained by these large, open-ended contracts, so they have no motivator to go faster/get the job done.  The next step is the Gateway 'infrastructure'... all same players, same limitations, same high price tag.

Hopefully, this model will be self-correcting as SpaceX, Blue Origins, Bigelow, China, India, etc. fly past the lethargic US program of record.  Choice of the next NASA Administrator, plus the chops given to the VP and Space Council can accelerate or slow this correction.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 05/11/2017 02:36 pm
I think the main reason for the many technical problems with SLS (and Orion) is that NASA and its pet contractors just don't have people with proper engineering and management skills anymore. A booster with no payloads or meaningful destinations is just not going to attract top quality younger personnel, and the senior NASA managers are all veterans of Shuttle operations with no hardware development experience. Remember that one stated purpose for Ares I was to re-acquire these skills before proceeding to Ares V.

The whole program is showing all the classic signs of imminent cancellation:

-- a constant series of technical screw-ups

-- ratio of schedule slips to calendar time approaching 1.0

-- increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense: ARM to an "International Lunar Station" that is nowhere near the Moon to a "Space Gateway" that is only manned 46 days a year. The latest payload is a 41-ton solar-ion drive deep space ship that is supposed to make a pointless flyby of Mars. It seems to exist only as an artist's concept.

-- the swing to re-usability in commercial boosters makes the whole idea of expending SSMEs and SRBs that were reused in the Shuttle program seem like an idiotic step into the past.

Frankly, it reminds me of the early SpaceX days. Remember the insulation falling off the tanks of the first Falcon 9?

"increasingly desperate proposals for missions and payloads that make less and less sense"

Need I really say anything :D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/11/2017 04:33 pm
This model while technically accurate, is highly likely to be 100% wrong in how the capability of F9 or FH would be utilized to launch a 48ton module in segments.   For both FH & F9 the path would be to select the most economical reuse ( or no reuse) options to get 48 tons to GTO.   FH utilized in side cores RTLS & DPL on the center core would likely be able to get 48 tons to GTO in 3 launches.  Expending the center core might enable only 2 launches. 

Refigure your model with FH & F9 optimized for the most economical path of getting 48 tons to GTO and you will see the saving are much better than "marginal".

I recreated the spread sheet, adding in those figures, and also estimates on USED Falcon Heavy discounts and fully expendable pricing.  Some notes:
-The $20M adder for government payloads is an adder to the reused discount rather than removing 30% from this number
-The 8mT number for FH is assumed to be all 3 cores to RTLS, this is a unknown but some members sims validate this data
-The estimated payload to GTO for Booster RTLS + core ASDS for Falcon Heavy was sourced from TheKutku in this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42667.60
-The reuse savings on Falcon Heavy are just 30% of the base price, rather than an estimate based on a per core basis derived from F9 as this appeared to be too low.
-Figures for FH costs of expendable and booster RTLS/core ASDS are estimates only
-The used expendable price of FH is probably artificially low, the assumption here is that the FH is used for commercial flights and then purchased for expendable use on heavy payloads by NASA.  Take this with a large grain of salt or remove it from the discussion entirely
-Finally Vulcan is added in, first for launches where the price is derived from ULA's stated goal of $90M base price with ACES being same cost as Centaur, and then $6M per SRB as verified by RocketBuilder data
-Distributed lift is a little weird, a Vulcan ACES 56x should be able to put 35mT to LEO, BUT distributed lift of two ACES would be able to put 40mT to GTO... so I padded this figure with a $60M flight of a used F9 split over the 2 flight costs of Vulcan in place of the reuse discount would be to make up the shortfall.  This could be split in many different ways but for the sake of brevity, I did it this way.
-Vulcan loss rate is an unknown, again for brevity assume same as SpaceX for insurance costs.  Of course if a single lift can put the payload to LEO and then a tug takes it out that cost will be further complicated.

With all that factored in the costs savings end up anywhere from 20-30%
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2017 05:17 pm
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/11/2017 05:26 pm
Well, its not like other companies have dropped or damaged space qualified hardware before. Case in point, SpaceX damaging all the nozzles on a Falcon 9 first stage. Accidents happen. I'm sure Michoud will learn from the mistake so that it doesn't happen in future.

The BIG difference is that SpaceX has lots of Falcons and huge numbers of Merlins on the go at any given time, so breaking something isn't such a big deal.  SLS's glacially slow production rate is a fundamental weakness.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/11/2017 05:34 pm
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.

It only becomes "not an option" if you declare it to be "not an option".

And here I thought ISS (while very imperfect) certainly demonstrated that in-space assembly IS an option.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/11/2017 05:37 pm
How rapidly can they repair the equipment that was damaged when the tank dome was dropped?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/11/2017 05:58 pm
In any case it's frustrating that such an important project could be so awesome and yet so troubled at the same time.

If you ignore the politics of the SLS, and accept the fact that Congress handed NASA something that was full of unknowns, then I'd say the SLS has been progressing normally.  Remember that NASA and Boeing did not have a chance to weigh in on how challenging building this rocket would be, so just because we're hitting challenges that nobody knew about is not NASA or Boeing's fault necessarily.

And again, as to this LOX dome accident, I don't see that as unusual per se, nor is it likely to be a big factor in the overall SLS schedule.  I'm more concerned about the welding issues, which to me could be stop the program for a significant amount of time.

Quote
By troubled I mean the lack of an "end-game"; a clear rationale for what you are going to do with it. Putting the cart before the horse...

Keep in mind that the SLS is nothing but a transportation system.  Nothing else.  It's job is to move exploration hardware out of Earth's gravity well and push it someplace.  Then each SLS rocket dies.

And historically transportation systems do not create the need to use them, it is a need that drives the creation of a transportation system.  So just because the SLS exists does not mean the U.S. Government has a "need" to send 70mT+ of mass to space every year for the next couple of decades.

...Congress/Admin. have to get a comprehensive, expansive, inclusive, Master Plan together. No-one can see the forest for the trees. A robust Moon Base, IMHO, is the most obvious way to start bringing all these things together; there would be plenty for everyone to contribute.

Again, you seem to assume that because the SLS exists that the U.S. Government has to use it.

The SLS was created out of the Constellation program, and that allowed it to be created outside of the normal Congressional process for new transportation systems.  But that only worked for the development part for the SLS.

In order to use the SLS Congress has to separately decide to fund one or more activities in space that merit the use of the SLS, and in case you haven't noticed there are no high-profile politicians that are arguing for that to happen.

Apollo, the Shuttle, and the ISS were all created because of how they could win or move past the Cold War.  The Constellation program was created in emotional times after the Columbia accident.  Big space projects have historically needed "National Imperatives" to get them funded, but I don't see any such need today for "a robust Moon base", or really anything else in space that requires government employees.  Today at least.

So I encourage you to identify a goal in space that would merit national attention and would be deemed worthy of not funding many other worthy efforts here on Earth.  And then contact your House and Senate representatives and see if they will be the sponsor for it in Congress.  If you want to save the SLS, that is what you need to do.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/11/2017 06:22 pm
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.
I wanted to add in New Glenn but it has too many unknowns, like price, 3 stage capacity.
For what its worth a reusable New Glenn could put a 5.5mT ACES +~40mT prop to LEO, which in turn could put a 45mT payload to the GTO reference orbit listed above.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/11/2017 06:36 pm
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.

It only becomes "not an option" if you declare it to be "not an option".

And here I thought ISS (while very imperfect) certainly demonstrated that in-space assembly IS an option.
That's unfair.

You might not like the DST concept, but he's consistent with the DST concept.

DST attempts to avoid "mass creep" by being non assembled in space, non modular. The point of the mass creep isn't payload on orbit, but MOI/EOI propulsion yield - e.g. can only get a SEP system to do this if the mass is low enough.

I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.

If you used the same approach for the ISS to get the same total volume, it would have reduced the mass by more than half.

Sure. But would you have preferred us to wait to launch ISS until we had a launcher that could launch 200+ mt in one launch? Would that have been cheaper to develop? Yes it's not an exact analogy obviously, but still...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Brovane on 05/11/2017 06:52 pm
When these commercial LVs can deliver a 8m diameter 45t DST to TLI in one piece, then you have case. The foreseeable commercial option for this is NG with 8.4m fairing and distributed launch.
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.

If needed a ACES upper stage could deliver a 8 meter 45t DST to TLI in one piece. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/11/2017 06:56 pm
Assembling DST in space is not really a option, fitting it out and refuelling it is.

It only becomes "not an option" if you declare it to be "not an option".

And here I thought ISS (while very imperfect) certainly demonstrated that in-space assembly IS an option.
That's unfair.

You might not like the DST concept, but he's consistent with the DST concept.

DST attempts to avoid "mass creep" by being non assembled in space, non modular. The point of the mass creep isn't payload on orbit, but MOI/EOI propulsion yield - e.g. can only get a SEP system to do this if the mass is low enough.

I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.

Doesn't matter 2 or 20. You can't test it on the ground as critically as such a long flight duration system would need to be. And you'll also need to consider how you refit/repair such, complicated by the operational needs of assembly/disassembly. Also, your choice of materials/shielding strategy might not work in an on orbit assembly arrangement.

So, if you didn't have SLS, what you might do is enclose in a fairing-like "wrapper", loft to the vicinity of the ISS as a whole, strip the "wrapper", test on orbit attached, fuel/wet, and spiral to the DSG as a back-up plan.

Quote
If you used the same approach for the ISS to get the same total volume, it would have reduced the mass by more than half.

Sure. But would you have preferred us to wait to launch ISS until we had a launcher that could launch 200+ mt in one launch? Would that have been cheaper to develop? Yes it's not an exact analogy obviously, but still...

Well, FLO's COMET derivative of the Saturn V, which was discussed around the time of when SSF, ISS's predecessor, was starting to be designed. That was the scale they were talking then.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/11/2017 07:35 pm
Having DSH bypass LEO reduces it's exposure to space debris damage. Spiralling out under SEP will expose it to Van Allen belt result solar array degradation. Best to get it to BLEO as quick as possible either directly or with a day or two in LEO to refuel US if using distributed launch
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/11/2017 10:02 pm
Having DSH bypass LEO reduces it's exposure to space debris damage. Spiralling out under SEP will expose it to Van Allen belt result solar array degradation. Best to get it to BLEO as quick as possible either directly or with a day or two in LEO to refuel US if using distributed launch
Irrelevant.

DST (which includes DSH) will spend many years/decade in high radiation environments. Make no difference.

Spiraling out would occur unmanned, and unprovisioned. All that's different is that it would throw off scheduled SLS launch cadence, which is unknown at this time as well. And, likely you'd only do this ... if there was no SLS to launch it (meaning either delayed or not existing).

Additional benefit - more resources to test/repair if there was launch damage. Skylab had a few issues on launch IIRC ...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2017 10:25 pm

I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.


If you are willing to use a very generous definition of 'part' the DST can be split up into several obvious parts.

* The solar panels are gigantic and must mass several tonnes. They could go up separately.
* The radiators will be big as well.
* 2-3 years of propellant must have a big mass. The DST could be fuelled in space.
* 2-3 years of human consumables can be added in orbit - including food, water, clothing and air. Boxing them to fit through a NASA Docking Port is not hard.

The DST may need a single engine, single solar panel, single radiator and small quantity of propellant to perform station keeping whilst the rest of the parts arrive. Assuming the Deep Space Habitat (DSH) does not perform this function.

It is connecting the wires and the pipes that requires the expensive spacewalks, so we want as many of them attached on the ground before launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/11/2017 11:25 pm

I'm not asking for the DST to be sliced and diced into 10 or 20 components. Just split into two. (or three at most) Yes there will obviously be some mass creep, but sometimes you make trade-offs with other benefits. Such as commercially available launch options.


If you are willing to use a very generous definition of 'part' the DST can be split up into several obvious parts.

* The solar panels are gigantic and must mass several tonnes. They could go up separately.
* The radiators will be big as well.
* 2-3 years of propellant must have a big mass. The DST could be fuelled in space.
* 2-3 years of human consumables can be added in orbit - including food, water, clothing and air. Boxing them to fit through a NASA Docking Port is not hard.

The DST may need a single engine, single solar panel, single radiator and small quantity of propellant to perform station keeping whilst the rest of the parts arrive. Assuming the Deep Space Habitat (DSH) does not perform this function.

It is connecting the wires and the pipes that requires the expensive spacewalks, so we want as many of them attached on the ground before launch.

Yes I agree that the # of spacewalks should be minimal.

As for how I would split it up: There is a small habitat included in the DST - That can certainly be launched separately.

Most of the propellant for the DST can be launched separately as well. Presumably the DST is already being architect-ed for propellant transfer to extend its lifetime, I assume...!?

Because it is mighty suspicious that the *optimal* size for a DST just so *happens* to mass exactly what SLS will be capable of delivering to the desired staging orbit. Isn't that just such an incredible coincidence?  ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/11/2017 11:55 pm
The DST may have a Spartan design to fit within the limits of the SLS.

A fuel transfer connector is a planned enhancement to the International Docking System Standard (IDSS). The DST and DSH could have the piping and pumps to support inspace  refuelling. The DSH could have a special refuelling arm to obtain the propellant from a tanker.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/12/2017 04:50 am
Yes I agree that the # of spacewalks should be minimal.

As for how I would split it up: There is a small habitat included in the DST - That can certainly be launched separately.

Most of the propellant for the DST can be launched separately as well. Presumably the DST is already being architect-ed for propellant transfer to extend its lifetime, I assume...!?

Because it is mighty suspicious that the *optimal* size for a DST just so *happens* to mass exactly what SLS will be capable of delivering to the desired staging orbit. Isn't that just such an incredible coincidence?  ;D

The Deep Space Transport itself consists of a propulsion module, and a crew habitat which together form a single launch component, but that doesn't fly until 2027.
The Deep Space Gateway is constructed of ~10mT modules co-manifested with flights of the 25mT Orion.

I would say Orion may be more of a constraint than the DST. None of the current planned launch vehicles other than SLS (not including ITS) can put that Orion mass to TLI in a single launch.  FH is close at an estimated 22mT
But if you add in some variation on distributed launch and it all changes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/12/2017 01:03 pm
One of the problems with NASA and with congress is not using EXISTING off the shelf parts.  For instance, with Direct, you got the mandated 70 tons to LEO with two 4 seg solids (existing steel cased), and 3 SSME's on the bottom.  Also, it would have been plumbed for 5 SSME's.  Then to upgrade to 130 tons, you added in your 5 SSME's and added an upper stage with one J2X, and if I remember correctly the 5 seg solids.  No need for black knights, use existing equipment and facilities, and add the upgraded cheaper engines when they were ready. 

We could already have the 70 ton version flying.  A lot could have been done with this flying more missions at less cost.  Two could get you to the moon.  A Delta IV heavy upper stage could get you to deep space with a nice sized payload. 

For some reason NASA chose not to go this path, even though we could have had a rocket flying and things being done while working on upgraded versions as the equipment came on line.  Four engines, not three with the option to go to five.  Going straight to 5 seg solids, instead of using 4 segs to get flying.  Waiting for the SSME upgrade.  Delays all.  More money with delays.  It has, in my opinion as a taxpayer became a bridge to nowhere.  Too expensive and no payloads until 5-10 years after the rocket is built.   

Russia used the same R7 designed rocket for the first satellite, the first manned flight, to Soyuz.  Incremental upgrades along this path.  SpaceX has incrementally upgraded the F9 also over time, but they had satellites being launched in the meantime and developed landing. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/12/2017 01:58 pm
Russia used the same R7 designed rocket for the first satellite, the first manned flight, to Soyuz.  Incremental upgrades along this path.  SpaceX has incrementally upgraded the F9 also over time, but they had satellites being launched in the meantime and developed landing. 

Think of the longevity of Titan and Atlas-Centaur, again all due to incremental upgrades. The lesson does seem to be that incremental upgrade is the way to go to improve performance (even if the increment is large, keep as much as you can).

With the benefit of hindsight, we can thus see that the way forwards for NASA at the end of STS was either the sidemount concept or EELV evolution (starting with launching Orion on Atlas-VH or Delta-IVH). However, you know what they say about hindsight being 20/20. Unfortunately, Dr Griffin wanted Ares-I and only Ares-I and wouldn't allow anything else. The rest is history.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/13/2017 06:39 pm
Go for 3 flights a year by the early 20s, and get the Moon Base going already, supplied by the 3P sectors, etc.

Where in the world would the budget for that come from?

SLS's design spec calls for a production capability of two per year maximum.  The spec requires a capability of three launches per year, but only on a surge basis (see p. 9 of the attachment).  The only cost estimates we've seen (attachment to this post (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26709.msg804592#msg804592)) suggest that launching two SLS's per year (one of them being the smaller, 70-tonne version) would cost $4 billion just for the rockets and ground systems, never mind payloads.


Looking at page 6, case #4a has two flights per year starting in FY2022.

(http://i.imgur.com/c2fsqlU.png)

It seems to me that it indicates both flights are Block II including the crewed flights. The advanced booster version is more expensive to produce than the Block 1B(especially liquid boosters), which Eric Z may have been referring to Block 1B when talking about 3 flights/year. Case #4a has a price tag in FY2022 of $4.74 Billion including Orion, SLS, ground systems and $300 million for miscellaneous in space components(i.e. payloads). The FY2017 budget has an allocation for exploration of $4.324 billion, which would be $4.77 Billion in FY2022 at 2% inflation and $5 billion at 3% inflation. So, the current budget pays for two flights per year(with Orion and some other stuff being factored in). Additional money for the in space elements wedge and an additional flight would only be freed up when some of NASA's other mega projects are completed: namely commercial crew and the $8 billion dollar JWST. NASA is paying $1.7 billion for crew rotation to the ISS this year while getting 6 seats at a per seat cost of $280 million per seat. After commercial crew comes online, they will be paying $100 million per seat(roughly $650 million per year). The previous administration plan was to use these savings for x-plane demonstrators, exploration in space elements(ARM being one example), increasing the ISS crew to 4 and general space technology research while allowing NASA's budget to fall in the coming years(i.e. deficit reduction) but it technically could be allocated to other things as well.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/13/2017 06:50 pm
It seems to me that it indicates both flights are Block II including the crewed flights.

I see where you're coming from, but I think the legend on that chart (see image, below) indicates pretty clearly that the June flight in each fiscal year is on a 70-tonne SLS, represented by an unshaded triangle.  I think what the chart is indicating is that the payload for that 70-tonne launch is a Block II Orion.

EDIT:  Attached legend.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/13/2017 06:53 pm
Would the EFT-1 flight have been a 'Block 0' Orion, with the EM-1 flight being a 'Block 1'?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/13/2017 07:04 pm
It seems to me that it indicates both flights are Block II including the crewed flights.

I see where you're coming from, but I think the legend on that chart (see image, below) indicates pretty clearly that the June flight in each fiscal year is on a 70-tonne SLS, represented by an unshaded triangle.  I think what the chart is indicating is that the payload for that 70-tonne launch is a Block II Orion.

Even if that is the case. Two Block 1Bs could cost either more than a Block 2 and a Block 1 or less. They would presumably be factoring in the cost of maintaining launch and production capability for 2 different boosters and 2 different upper stages. IMO 2 Block 1Bs would be cheaper than a Block 2 and a Block 1 (especially with liquid boosters). If you were shooting for 3 per year, standardizing around the Block 1B would be sufficient. 315 mT IMLEO/123 mT TLI per year is plenty for pretty much any mission.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/15/2017 06:15 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/15/2017 06:23 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yokem55 on 05/15/2017 06:35 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/15/2017 06:43 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?

I wonder if it's related to the study, due 20 May (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=39540.msg1657101#msg1657101), of the possibility of sending Orion to the ISS without SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: butters on 05/15/2017 06:51 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?

Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...

Not sure what their intentions are here.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BrianNH on 05/15/2017 06:59 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

From the SLS announcement 3 days ago:

Quote
“We’re considering additional ground testing of the heat shield prior to EM-1 as well as the possibility of advancing the ascent abort test for the Orion launch abort system based on findings from the study,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. “Conducting these tests in advance of EM-1 would provide additional data that will advance our systems knowledge faster and possibly improve the robustness of the overall plan for sending humans into deep space.”
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Michael Baylor on 05/15/2017 07:45 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

From the SLS announcement 3 days ago:

Quote
“We’re considering additional ground testing of the heat shield prior to EM-1 as well as the possibility of advancing the ascent abort test for the Orion launch abort system based on findings from the study,” said William Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate. “Conducting these tests in advance of EM-1 would provide additional data that will advance our systems knowledge faster and possibly improve the robustness of the overall plan for sending humans into deep space.”

This article claims the abort test will use a PeaceKeeper missile, and
a Delta IV Heavy seems a bit overkill for an aport test. http://www.americaspace.com/2014/12/30/mandatory-ascent-abort-system-launch-test-lies-ahead-before-orions-first-crewed-nasa-sls-blastoff/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yokem55 on 05/15/2017 08:11 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?

Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...

Not sure what their intentions are here.

A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'.  :)
Falcon Heavy certainly crossed my mind, but it probably can't get much formal consideration until there is a successful flight. It would also require a custom payload adapter that would have to be built and studied to death and I don't think any consideration has been given to horizontally integrating Orion+SM.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/15/2017 08:30 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?

Unless they are sending them on Dragon, no. DIVH can't remotely send Orion translunar. It might not even be able to get a fully fueled Orion to ISS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/15/2017 08:53 pm
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'.  :)
Falcon Heavy certainly crossed my mind, but it probably can't get much formal consideration until there is a successful flight.

Falcon Heavy is on the NLS II contract, so NASA the government mechanisms to procure such a flight are in place.  I would imagine SpaceX would only have to verify that they plan to have any qualifications or certifications done before the flight was needed.  See:

https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/pages/Vehicles.aspx

Quote
It would also require a custom payload adapter that would have to be built and studied to death and I don't think any consideration has been given to horizontally integrating Orion+SM.

Payload adapters are just mechanical interfaces, so I'm not sure why you think this would be a big deal.  A custom one for Delta IV Heavy was built, so why not one for Falcon Heavy?  Orion is only 5m in diameter, which smaller than the 5.2m outer diameter of the standard Falcon payload fairing.

As to vertical integration, it's something SpaceX has said they plan to provide at 39A, so it may just be a matter of when they have a customer for that requirement...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/15/2017 09:12 pm
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920
Expected this.

Too much is riding on EM-1. So why not remove dependencies, like field/test Orion separately.
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?
Much longer, more like 2+ years, unless ... expedited.

Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...

Not sure what their intentions are here.
DIVH will never be HR. Time/cost/deprecated.

Likely to do something with Orion so that fewer dependencies that rolled up when they looked at crewing EM-1. Someone doesn't like being painted into a corner, even though that's been the plan, all along.

A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'.  :)
More like " Just dreamin' ".

DIVH's virtue - ETF-1, thus ... ETF-2? The adapter's flight qualified, processes are in place to fly it. And ... you can get more payload theoretically, with 6 solids and RS68A's, a never flown before configuration. Enough perhaps for a ESM+props+other?

Now, what could you do with it?

Well, it does need to be qualified with a crew sitting in it, on orbit, for about a week.

To dock with the ISS you'll have to do the work already forgone to allow that. But if you did, a crew could embark from the ISS, getting around both the DIVH HR and lifting that god awfully heavy abort rocket.

Or you could use Starliner/Dragon 2 to embark crew on orbit. In either case multiple contingencies.

Now, lets assume you wanted to do more, once qualified. Gets a bit more exciting here. Orion can accept significant acceleration through the docking adapter, so in theory you could dock with one of six US, and have an extended mission well above GEO. Less risky than SLS EM-1, but still risky and not standard NASA by any stretch.

There are some propulsion options that could get you a lunar free return in theory.

Could you pull this off before Musk does so with FH/Dragon 2? Hmm. Bit of a horse race.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cppetrie on 05/15/2017 09:15 pm
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?
Might be easier to ask what will go right.

-ducks
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 05/15/2017 10:28 pm
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?
Might be easier to ask what will go right.

-ducks

No need for this in an update thread.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/15/2017 10:39 pm
I accidentally posted this on the update thread, sorry!

----------------------

NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Crewed lunar flyby? How much $$ would it take to human rate Delta IV Heavy?
What's the lead time on ordering a Delta Heavy anyway? 18 mos?

Possibly longer if they want a human-rated DIVH...

Not sure what their intentions are here.

A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'.  :)

--------------------

Quote
NASA Watch‏ @NASAWatch 26s26 seconds ago

Sources report #NASA looking at using the EM-2 SLS launch vehicle for EM-1 mission due to hydrogen tank issues on EM-1 vehicle @NASA_SLS

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864146709399646208 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864146709399646208)

So am I understanding things correctly here?
 - The LOX tank dome for the structural test article was damaged beyond repair (but a new dome can be constructed using parts on hand)
 - The Hydrogen tank for the first flight vehicle is damaged, forcing them to use the tank earmarked for flight #2? (Is the tank a loss or can it be repaired)

When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/15/2017 11:23 pm
Could the Delta 4 Heavy flight be a second unmanned test of the Orion?
Say testing the Orion's human parts like the ECLSS in space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 05/15/2017 11:46 pm
Quote
So am I understanding things correctly here?
 - The LOX tank dome for the structural test article was damaged beyond repair (but a new dome can be constructed using parts on hand)
 - The Hydrogen tank for the first flight vehicle is damaged, forcing them to use the tank earmarked for flight #2? (Is the tank a loss or can it be repaired)

When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?


Though obviously not good, these recent events are not catastrophic to the program.  Yes it will cause some delays, but hardly unusual for a new program.  They will recover.

Edit:  Full disclosure, I've ordered my Tesla Model 3 and plan to watch the next SpaceX launch from VAFB and do a tour of Hawthorne later this year :)  I love SpaceX, but the confirmation bias towards SLS is quite strong...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cppetrie on 05/16/2017 12:51 am
When it rains it pours, it seems like for SLS. What else could go wrong?
Might be easier to ask what will go right.

-ducks

No need for this in an update thread.
My apologies. There's plenty of non-update posts in this thread. Seems to be more of an updates/discussion thread. There also doesn't appear to be an SLS party thread.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/16/2017 06:57 am
NASA Watch:
Quote
Sources within #NASA report interest in buying another Delta IV Heavy for a possible @NASA_Orion launch - destination TBD

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/864179735106129920

Expected this.

Too much is riding on EM-1. So why not remove dependencies, like field/test Orion separately.
Exactly. From what I hear from sources this interest in another Delta IV Heavy mission with Orion is for an EFT-1 style test flight, yet with a whole lot more test purposes:
- The re-designed heatshield (tiled in stead of monolithic). NASA is concerned about the performance of a tiled heathshield design. Want to subject this design to only partial heat-loading first (like was done on EFT-1) before subjecting to full heating load from lunar direct re-enty.
- Unmanned test of ECLSS and other crew systems prior to crew (to ease concerns that were voiced multiple times by ASAP and the Astronaut Office)
- Test of the Service Module, particularly the ESM part of it. Test of the main propulsion engine and RCS. To this purpose the mission will fly with only a partial propellant load in the ESM. Mission will fly with ESM currently being constructed for EM-1. EM-1 would than use the next ESM which is much more like the final "full-up" design.

Mission profile: Delta IV Heavy will lift Orion into LEO. Multiple orbit test of ECLSS and other crew systems. Multiple orbit test of RCS and Service Module systems. Finally, SM main propulsion system will be used for EFT-1 style change of orbit and re-entry.

Basically, accomplish a substantial portion of EM-1 test objectives before actually flying EM-1. Thus, EM-1 can be delayed while still making progress in getting Orion ready for manned flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/16/2017 07:23 am
- The re-designed heatshield (tiled in stead of monolithic). NASA is concerned about the performance of a tiled heathshield design. Want to subject this design to only partial heat-loading first (like was done on EFT-1) before subjecting to full heating load from lunar direct re-enty.

Have heard conflicting need expressed. One was for a repeat as you describe, the other was a desire for higher entry speed than before. Second case punt to EM-1 perhaps?

Quote
- Unmanned test of ECLSS and other crew systems prior to crew (to ease concerns that were voiced multiple times by ASAP and the Astronaut Office)

Again, multiple different things heard. One was for an unmanned test like EM-1 as originally intended. The other was to loiter considerably to prove (ASAP) that the system with astros would be crew proven before TLI to be able to survive long enough for return (like was done with a separate mission with Apollo 7). Which doesn't work well given EUS stage lifetime.

Quote
- Test of the Service Module, particularly the ESM part of it. Test of the main propulsion engine and RCS. To this purpose the mission will fly with only a partial propellant load in the ESM.
Again like Apollo 7. Where with partial systems you could still safely deorbit.

Quote
Mission profile: Delta IV Heavy will lift Orion into LEO. Multiple orbit test of ECLSS and other crew systems. Multiple orbit test of RCS and Service Module systems. Finally, SM main propulsion system will be used for EFT-1 style change of orbit and re-entry.

Which gets you most of ASAP, but doesn't get you crew interfaces, habitability, and crew systems evaluations that Apollo 7 did get (they were a pretty spooked crew that thought they were flying a death trap due to the Apollo 1 fire).

Quote
Basically, accomplish a substantial portion of EM-1 test objectives before actually flying EM-1. Thus, EM-1 can be delayed while still making progress in getting Orion ready for manned flight.
Agreed that's why it had to happen. Too much is on the board.

But even accomplishing that, there might still be too much on the board, especially when you compare with Apollo 7 before Apollo 8.

And it will be a big enough deal to do an EFT-2 with an ESM in place of being bolted on to the US as EFT-1 was. DIVH-HU and some more.

So one either does more (limited crew occupancy, boost to GEO+), or perhaps EFT-3? Pick your poison?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/16/2017 08:59 am
- The re-designed heatshield (tiled in stead of monolithic). NASA is concerned about the performance of a tiled heathshield design. Want to subject this design to only partial heat-loading first (like was done on EFT-1) before subjecting to full heating load from lunar direct re-enty.

Have heard conflicting need expressed. One was for a repeat as you describe, the other was a desire for higher entry speed than before. Second case punt to EM-1 perhaps?
Higher speed entry (lunar direct re-entry) indeed punted to EM-1. Under the scenario I was informed about EM- 1 will still go into lunar DRO.

- Unmanned test of ECLSS and other crew systems prior to crew (to ease concerns that were voiced multiple times by ASAP and the Astronaut Office)

Again, multiple different things heard. One was for an unmanned test like EM-1 as originally intended. The other was to loiter considerably to prove (ASAP) that the system with astros would be crew proven before TLI to be able to survive long enough for return (like was done with a separate mission with Apollo 7). Which doesn't work well given EUS stage lifetime.
According to source: The proposed second Delta IV Heavy mission for Orion is indeed intended to (also) circumvent the EUS loiter time issue of EM-2. Test the Orion ECLSS for several hours (multiple orbits) on an unmanned mission, safely in LEO.


Mission profile: Delta IV Heavy will lift Orion into LEO. Multiple orbit test of ECLSS and other crew systems. Multiple orbit test of RCS and Service Module systems. Finally, SM main propulsion system will be used for EFT-1 style change of orbit and re-entry.

Which gets you most of ASAP, but doesn't get you crew interfaces, habitability, and crew systems evaluations that Apollo 7 did get (they were a pretty spooked crew that thought they were flying a death trap due to the Apollo 1 fire).
There will be crew systems evaluations on this mission, despite the fact that "the crew" in case consists of dummies. Seats, crew member restraints, crew suits and ECLSS connections to suits are all intended to be tested.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/16/2017 12:45 pm
Could the Delta 4 Heavy flight be a second unmanned test of the Orion?
Say testing the Orion's human parts like the ECLSS in space.

From what I've read on spacenews.com, this notional EFT-2 mission would be an uncrewed test of flight hardware in LEO, including life-support, RCS and MPS, the latter being used to launch the Orion into the highest-possible apogee orbit with the intent of carrying out a second heat shield/EDL test.

FWIW, I understand that Delta-IVH has too low performance to fly a fully crew-safe Orion (too much mass in the LAS).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/16/2017 04:04 pm
Two Block 1Bs could cost either more than a Block 2 and a Block 1 or less. They would presumably be factoring in the cost of maintaining launch and production capability for 2 different boosters and 2 different upper stages. IMO 2 Block 1Bs would be cheaper than a Block 2 and a Block 1 (especially with liquid boosters). If you were shooting for 3 per year, standardizing around the Block 1B would be sufficient. 315 mT IMLEO/123 mT TLI per year is plenty for pretty much any mission.

The ESD scenarios define two versions of SLS.  Both have two 5-segment SRBs.  The 70-t variant has three RS-25's and a Delta IV upper stage, while the 130-t variant has five RS-25's, an upper stage with three J-2X's and possibly a Delta IV upper stage.  New, competitively-sourced SRBs are introduced (in either 2020 or 2023 or 2023, depending on the scenario).  But the point is that these were cheaper, not more powerful.  They didn't need to be more powerful, because the 130-t SLS was expected to have five RS-25's and an upper stage better optimized for LEO than the current EUS.

I'll grant that the three-J-2X upper stage would likely be more expensive than the now-planned EUS based (IIRC) on RL-10's.

I don't think having two booster cores on line would have increased costs much, because the difference was just in the number of RS-25's.  If it were cheaper to standardize on a single booster, NASA would not have projected the use of two.

By the way, 93143 has made a good case that inflation at a reasonable is already included in the scenarios (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1435780#msg1435780) at for SLS and ground systems, so for a first approximation, you don't need to add it in (this weakens my argument a bit).  Orion is a different matter: the inflation rate assumed was quite low (and Booz Allen Hamilton dinged NASA for this [see attachment here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1432605#msg1432605)]).

But the considerations above are details.  The big-ticket items are that the production capacity for three SLS's per year does not exist.  No doubt it could be created, but it would take money and time, and it's hard to see how it could possibly be available by the early 2020's.  And the biggest problem is the cost of the payloads.  Scenario 4a allows a budget wedge for payloads that ramps up to $450/year by FY 2025.  If you assume one of the three payloads to be launched is an Orion, which is already budgeted for in the Scenario, that that leaves $225 million for each of the two other payloads.  That's peanuts.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/16/2017 04:31 pm
A EFT-2 on either Delta IVH or Falcon Heavy allows for more of Orion to be tested, closer to what EM-1 would accomplish.  The cost difference in a fully expendable FH vs Delta IVH could around $100M, but only one of those rockets looks to have a future. If the entire cost difference was ate up with an adapter, adding in vertical integration at the pad and whatever else that would still be money well spent.
I *think* the FH expendable could even put a fully fueled Orion through an elliptical transfer orbit, such as GTO, upon which the 1.5 km/s dV capability of the Orion SM could make up for a lunar fly-by.


If they do this EFT-2 on Delta-IVH at the minimum, the value in doing EM-1 drops off somewhat, but the value in flying EM-1 on ICPS drops off dramatically.

If they scrap the ICPS now and move direct to EUS they will incur a delay to SLS first flight but accelerate the overall program schedule.  These current delays in SLS become non-critical. The EFT-2 would keep Orion moving along, and once SLS is finally ready fly a full up test of Orion + EUS OR the 1st Deeps Space Gateway module.
The 2 years until SLS flies for the first time becomes 3+, at which point it is an actual rocket rather than a stop gap to be followed by another 3 year delay to rework the ground hardware.  3+ years now first flight of the actual SLS , vs. 5 years (assuming no further delays to EM-1, or post EM-1/EUS development cascading the schedule further to the right.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 05/16/2017 05:08 pm

Excellent post, GWH.  Ultimately SLS with iCPS was a stop gap to "keep things flying" and "bridge the gap" after STS.  Well, now that's all gone anyway, and the point lost.  Too bad that the (iCPS) GSE/MLP is pretty much done, but that's not a reason to just work this thing right to at least get two or three SLS Block 1B flown...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 05/16/2017 05:17 pm
Not to be rude, but EM-1/2 and potentially EFT-1/2 have been examples of spectacular misunderstandings of how to bring about a reductionist HSF exploration architecture in an allowable political context.

It's been about putting off, compounding mission goals under the rubric of false economics that crowding on more into fewer missions makes them somehow more cost effective, so we can excuse away the hideous cost desired for feeding those congressional districts, where then we paint ourselves into a corner when things become unworkable and we have to "back fill" with missions like EFT-1/2.

Which then suffer a similar fate on a smaller scale, because we talk ourselves (again) into a reductionist agenda of too much and too narrow. Always betting on the come that the big thing will all work out.

As opposed to things like COTS/CRS/CC, which at times have been torturous, but have/are delivering HSF capability on a regular basis.

We also seem to see some economic shifts gradually happening in aerospace. They appear to be permanent now.

Perhaps it might be best to not continue in the same pattern, but instead reassess what we have in hand, and go forward opening up more functional development paths with fall back instead of all this reductionist HSF gambling SLS/Orion has become known for? The EFT side bets to recover are starting to mount up.

Although ULA really can use the benefit right now.

To SLS policy makers:
    Cheap expensive is only expensive and never cheap.

add:

As an alternative, remember how mission classes and objectives with Apollo were used expansively to cover multiple overlapping means to accomplish the final goal in total.

Many steps were skipped or altered, as the capabilities advanced or went slow. Like the things we've already seen with CxP/SLS/Orion.

It wasn't the end of the world for congressional districts when the Apollo program (or Shuttle) changed plans, because the same overall effect happened. But with this micromanaged approach, seemingly meant to overpromise and underdeliver, too much is locked down from the start, as if every dollar must find its predestined pocket in deterministic time. That's frankly nuts, and predisposes a impossible program to run.

I wonder if we really ever learned from Apollo/Saturn and Shuttle. Or if we have collectively stuck our fingers in out ears, and hummed real loud.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/16/2017 05:34 pm
*IF* they want to do an EFT-2 mission on Delta IV, the only way it makes sense IMO is to cancel EM-1 and go directly to EM-2 with the EUS.

Why? Because apparently it will take 33 months to switch over the ground infrastructure after EM-1 to get it ready for the EUS. (33 months to change the upper stage infrastructure!!! Are they insane? This makes no sense, but is apparently what we are told)

Getting rid of the ICPS at least has the chance of cutting down the schedule before SLS can fly real missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/16/2017 05:52 pm
*IF* they want to do an EFT-2 mission on Delta IV, the only way it makes sense IMO is to cancel EM-1 and go directly to EM-2 with the EUS.

IMO EM-2 and Europa Clipper are both going to be too valuable to risk on a new rocket, but a commercially developed habitat flown to deep space should be acceptable.  Then EM-2 has a place to go and the Orion can be a safe haven to test out said habitat.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Augustus_ on 05/16/2017 10:37 pm
Seems this "EFT-2" is only speculation, even within NASA itself.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/05/is-nasa-thinkin.html
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 05/17/2017 02:29 am
A Bird's-eye View: SLS Core Stage Engine Section Loaded onto the Barge Pegasus

NASA's Marshall Center
Published on May 16, 2017

A drone captured this view as a structural test version of the core stage engine section for NASA's new heavy-lift rocket, the Space Launch System, was loaded onto the agency's barge Pegasus at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans for transport to NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. At Marshall, engineers will push, pull, twist and bend the test article with millions of pounds of force to ensure the hardware can withstand the extreme forces of launch and ascent. The engine section, located at the bottom of the rocket's core stage, will house the four RS-25 engines and be an attachment point for the two solid rocket boosters. The engine section test article is the first of four core stage test articles manufactured at Michoud and is designed to the same specifications as the engine section that will fly on the first SLS mission with the Orion spacecraft.

https://youtu.be/9Dy1sve-Bk8?t=001

https://youtu.be/9Dy1sve-Bk8
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/17/2017 07:45 am
How many SMs has ESA agreed to build and provide? Wasn't it two? And under the existing plan a third SM would not have been needed until what, 2023? Unless I am mistaken, it is undetermined who would build the following SMs. While I agree with going ahead and testing Orion on another LV if SLS is not ready, what happens when Orions fly earlier than planned on DIVH or FH and those SMs get used up?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 05/17/2017 09:35 am
ESA have agreed to build one SM with an option on a second, IIRC.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/17/2017 11:27 am
ESA have agreed to build one SM with an option on a second, IIRC.
Contract for building a second ESM was formalised in February 2017. So, that second one is no longer an option but actually being built. It is part of the barter for continued participation of ESA in the ISS to 2024.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 05/17/2017 05:29 pm
This model while technically accurate, is highly likely to be 100% wrong in how the capability of F9 or FH would be utilized to launch a 48ton module in segments.   For both FH & F9 the path would be to select the most economical reuse ( or no reuse) options to get 48 tons to GTO.   FH utilized in side cores RTLS & DPL on the center core would likely be able to get 48 tons to GTO in 3 launches.  Expending the center core might enable only 2 launches. 

Refigure your model with FH & F9 optimized for the most economical path of getting 48 tons to GTO and you will see the saving are much better than "marginal".

I recreated the spread sheet, adding in those figures, and also estimates on USED Falcon Heavy discounts and fully expendable pricing.  Some notes:
-The $20M adder for government payloads is an adder to the reused discount rather than removing 30% from this number
-The 8mT number for FH is assumed to be all 3 cores to RTLS, this is a unknown but some members sims validate this data
-The estimated payload to GTO for Booster RTLS + core ASDS for Falcon Heavy was sourced from TheKutku in this thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=42667.60
-The reuse savings on Falcon Heavy are just 30% of the base price, rather than an estimate based on a per core basis derived from F9 as this appeared to be too low.
-Figures for FH costs of expendable and booster RTLS/core ASDS are estimates only
-The used expendable price of FH is probably artificially low, the assumption here is that the FH is used for commercial flights and then purchased for expendable use on heavy payloads by NASA.  Take this with a large grain of salt or remove it from the discussion entirely
-Finally Vulcan is added in, first for launches where the price is derived from ULA's stated goal of $90M base price with ACES being same cost as Centaur, and then $6M per SRB as verified by RocketBuilder data
-Distributed lift is a little weird, a Vulcan ACES 56x should be able to put 35mT to LEO, BUT distributed lift of two ACES would be able to put 40mT to GTO... so I padded this figure with a $60M flight of a used F9 split over the 2 flight costs of Vulcan in place of the reuse discount would be to make up the shortfall.  This could be split in many different ways but for the sake of brevity, I did it this way.
-Vulcan loss rate is an unknown, again for brevity assume same as SpaceX for insurance costs.  Of course if a single lift can put the payload to LEO and then a tug takes it out that cost will be further complicated.

With all that factored in the costs savings end up anywhere from 20-30%

I have a few problems with your Falcon Heavy expendable model and that is that...
1.)SpaceX hasn't published prices for the 26.8 mT expendable Falcon Heavy Configuration. It's entirely possible that they increased performance/stretched tanks or whatever without an increase in price, but there is no evidence for this. There is counter evidence that Falcon 9 prices have been increasing with the performance numbers(presumably larger tanks cost).
2.)The standard Falcon 9 PLF allows for ~150 cubic meters while the design I am using to evaluate this occupies ~550 cubic meters of volume by being roughly a cylinder that is 7.2 meter diameter and 13.34 meters tall(here:https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006328.pdf)

For this reason, I would use the following parameters:
1.)The $135 million old Falcon Heavy inflated from 2013 to 2017 at 2.5%($150 million) from an original quoted $135 million for "over 6.5 mT" with the $20 million dollar government additional requirements(Shotwell actually said it was $10-$30 million) and $3 million extra for a 25% stretched specialized fairing(~185 cubic meters...555 cubic meters over 3 flights).
2.)The old Falcon Heavy GTO number of ~21 mT to match the expendable pricing that we have available. The density of the payload is such that this would be about the mass that could be launched anyway.
3.)3 flights

Which yields the following:
(http://i.imgur.com/hnBbHj1.png)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/17/2017 06:21 pm
...Which yields the following:...

Since you are only comparing launch costs, you should ignore common payload costs. Just calculate the increase in payload costs for modularity and aging and charge that to the distributed launcher costs.

Using your figures, the savings with FH is (2833.33 - 2236.82) / 1333.33 = 44.7% of the launch costs with SLS, even after the higher costs of the modular payloads are included in the accounting.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/18/2017 12:17 am
ESA have agreed to build one SM with an option on a second, IIRC.
Contract for building a second ESM was formalised in February 2017. So, that second one is no longer an option but actually being built. It is part of the barter for continued participation of ESA in the ISS to 2024.

So this begs the question. If those SMs fly on FH or DIVH test flights, where do the SMs come from when SLS is ready for a maiden flight shortly thereafter?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TakeOff on 05/18/2017 12:54 am
...Which yields the following:...

Since you are only comparing launch costs, you should ignore common payload costs. Just calculate the increase in payload costs for modularity and aging and charge that to the distributed launcher costs.

Using your figures, the savings with FH is (2833.33 - 2236.82) / 1333.33 = 44.7% of the launch costs with SLS, even after the higher costs of the modular payloads are included in the accounting.
Falcon Heavy can launch about as much mass to LEO as SLS Block I (64 tons). Why would FH require modular assembly but not the SLS? The SLS block II with imaginary new solid boosters isn't scheduled to launch until 2029, and we all know that won't happen. SLS is a Falcon Heavy class launcher. It is not a heavier lift.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TakeOff on 05/18/2017 08:54 am
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did? SLS Block I will take 70 tons to LEO, it is often said. The Shuttle orbiter weighed 68 tons empty. SLS has a fourth main engine, a fifth segment in its solid booster and an upper stage with about 25 tons of fuel. Why isn't SLS much more powerful than the Shuttle was? Is the main stage much heavier than the Shuttle's external tank?


I know that the "tons to LEO" figures are less than exact for comparisons. But if they are this much off they should not be used. SLS' thrust is substantially higher in all three stages. Could the SLS launch a fully loaded Shuttle orbiter, mass wise?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/18/2017 08:58 am
Falcon Heavy can launch about as much mass to LEO as SLS Block I (64 tons).

IIRC, Block 0 could do 70 mT. I think calculations most people here have agreed on are about 95 mT for Block I, 105 mT for Block IB, and in the neighborhood of 123 mT for Block II if the advanced boosters are solids. The 130 mT mandate is unreachable without more main engines and LUS, liquid boosters, or both. FH could get a tiny bit higher than 64 mT w/ crossfeed, which won't happen unless a customer asks for it and offers to pay for it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/18/2017 09:00 am
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?

The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 11:18 am
... Could the SLS launch a fully loaded Shuttle orbiter, mass wise?
The orbiter had a lot of mass devoted to carrying the main engines to orbit and back. Remove that mass from the Orbiter (it was relocated to the SLS core) and SLS could launch it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: gospacex on 05/18/2017 11:24 am
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did? SLS Block I will take 70 tons to LEO, it is often said. The Shuttle orbiter weighed 68 tons empty. SLS has a fourth main engine, a fifth segment in its solid booster and an upper stage with about 25 tons of fuel. Why isn't SLS much more powerful than the Shuttle was? Is the main stage much heavier than the Shuttle's external tank?

If you count the entire Orbiter as "mass to LEO" for Shuttle, then for SLS you should count the entire second stage dry mass as "mass to LEO", plus the payload per se. This way, SLS would send more to LEO than Shuttle, as expected.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 12:16 pm
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did? SLS Block I will take 70 tons to LEO, it is often said. The Shuttle orbiter weighed 68 tons empty. SLS has a fourth main engine, a fifth segment in its solid booster and an upper stage with about 25 tons of fuel. Why isn't SLS much more powerful than the Shuttle was? Is the main stage much heavier than the Shuttle's external tank?

If you count the entire Orbiter as "mass to LEO" for Shuttle, then for SLS you should count the entire second stage dry mass as "mass to LEO", plus the payload per se. This way, SLS would send more to LEO than Shuttle, as expected.

In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TakeOff on 05/18/2017 01:14 pm
Is the fully fueled upper stage (ICPS) considered "payload"? Isn't that an unconventional definition?

While SLS is planned to launch Orion to Lunar orbit, I think that all SLS based crewed Mars missions I've heard of actually do suggest launches to LEO in order to assemble multiple SLS payloads, and the separately launched crew, into a Mars capable spacecraft. Is SLS unsuitable by design to do that?
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?

The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 01:59 pm
Is the fully fueled upper stage (ICPS) considered "payload"? Isn't that an unconventional definition?

While SLS is planned to launch Orion to Lunar orbit, I think that all SLS based crewed Mars missions I've heard of actually do suggest launches to LEO in order to assemble multiple SLS payloads, and the separately launched crew, into a Mars capable spacecraft. Is SLS unsuitable by design to do that?
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?

The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).

Try Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforum.nasaspaceflight.com+SLS+payload+shuttle

Payload definitions depend on which vehicle you're looking at. For SLS Block 1, the payload is everything above the core stage. Since all of this is actually delivered into orbit (including the core stage), counting the ICPS as payload is sensible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/18/2017 03:23 pm
Is the fully fueled upper stage (ICPS) considered "payload"? Isn't that an unconventional definition?

While SLS is planned to launch Orion to Lunar orbit, I think that all SLS based crewed Mars missions I've heard of actually do suggest launches to LEO in order to assemble multiple SLS payloads, and the separately launched crew, into a Mars capable spacecraft. Is SLS unsuitable by design to do that?
Why does the SLS have lower mass capacity to LEO than the Shuttle's launch stack did?

The forum is full of multiple hundreds of posts re. this. Suggest you dig into the archives and do some reading.
This is a recurring problem. I've gotten used to more advance search functions, like Stack Exchange that has tags and headline searches. Here one has to fiddle quite a bit in order to get relevant results. Which is a bit hard when one is asking about something one doesn't know much about. But I'll improve on searching. I've found some interesting threads on it now. (It's hard to come up with anything new here).

Try Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aforum.nasaspaceflight.com+SLS+payload+shuttle

Payload definitions depend on which vehicle you're looking at. For SLS Block 1, the payload is everything above the core stage. Since all of this is actually delivered into orbit (including the core stage), counting the ICPS as payload is sensible.

Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 05/18/2017 03:36 pm
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???

In NSF's EM-1 article, it was noted that after core burnout, the orbit is 975 x 22 nautical miles, in order to ensure the core is disposed of safely, and then a 45+ minute coast to apogee which would be the first time the upper stage lights to just lift the perigee out of the atmosphere.  The way I understand it is that its similar to the Shuttle in that the ET could theoretically have been carried all the way to orbit, but was placed in a disposal trajectory.  In this case, the extra performance seems to be being used to help the subsequent TLI burn via the Oberth effect.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/18/2017 04:45 pm
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???

In NSF's EM-1 article, it was noted that after core burnout, the orbit is 975 x 22 nautical miles, in order to ensure the core is disposed of safely, and then a 45+ minute coast to apogee which would be the first time the upper stage lights to just lift the perigee out of the atmosphere.  The way I understand it is that its similar to the Shuttle in that the ET could theoretically have been carried all the way to orbit, but was placed in a disposal trajectory.  In this case, the extra performance seems to be being used to help the subsequent TLI burn via the Oberth effect.

Ok, for all missions the core stage is almost left in orbit (like STS), but I guess I never realized that the apogee would be that high for that mission.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/18/2017 06:03 pm
Since when does the SLS core stage go into orbit???

In NSF's EM-1 article, it was noted that after core burnout, the orbit is 975 x 22 nautical miles, in order to ensure the core is disposed of safely, and then a 45+ minute coast to apogee which would be the first time the upper stage lights to just lift the perigee out of the atmosphere.  The way I understand it is that its similar to the Shuttle in that the ET could theoretically have been carried all the way to orbit, but was placed in a disposal trajectory.  In this case, the extra performance seems to be being used to help the subsequent TLI burn via the Oberth effect.

Ok, for all missions the core stage is almost left in orbit (like STS), but I guess I never realized that the apogee would be that high for that mission.

No, just for the Block 1 mission. Block 1B drops the core stage well before reaching a positive perigee. Block 1B brings less mass to orbit than Block 1 or STS (~120t vs ~165t and ~145t, respectively), but far more of it is useful mass.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/22/2017 06:44 pm

In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.

If the payload performs the circularization burn does this mean that the SLS block 1 alpha is a 85 tonne payload SSTO? A significant cost saving for launching medium heavy payloads.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2017 07:46 pm

In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.

If the payload performs the circularization burn does this mean that the SLS block 1 alpha is a 85 tonne payload SSTO? A significant cost saving for launching medium heavy payloads.

It's no SSTO but 1.5 stage to orbit, just like STS. In the case of STS, the "payload" (orbiter) did do the circularization burn.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hkultala on 05/22/2017 07:58 pm

In the case of SLS Block 1, the "second stage" is the core stage, which is 85 tonnes at burnout.

If the payload performs the circularization burn does this mean that the SLS block 1 alpha is a 85 tonne payload SSTO? A significant cost saving for launching medium heavy payloads.

SSTO == Single Stage To Orbit.

What you are talking is neither single stage nor to orbit.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2017 08:06 pm
Even if SLS was a SSTO (it's not even close) it's not remotely close to a significant cost savings. SSTO is only useful if it's rapidly reuseable. Or at least reuseable. Or even recoverable for refurbishment. SLS is none of the above. It's a step backwards from the Shuttle in just about every capability.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/22/2017 08:25 pm
The two exceptions to your statement is payload mass and orbit achievable from that of Shuttle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2017 08:41 pm
The two exceptions to your statement is payload mass and orbit achievable from that of Shuttle.

Only payload mass & diameter. Shuttle with IUS reached high energy orbits with lighter payloads up to 5 m diameter.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2017 08:46 pm
SSTO == Single Stage To Orbit.

What you are talking is neither single stage nor to orbit.

It is certainly "to orbit". It's only stable for one revolution due to atmospheric drag at perigee, but it is an orbit.

Quote from: Philip Sloss
After Core Stage separation, both the spent stage and the mated Orion-ICPS stack will be in an elliptical Earth orbit with an apogee of about 975 nautical miles and a perigee of about 22 nautical miles.

At the first apogee, around forty-five to fifty minutes after liftoff, the ICPS will make its first burn to bring the perigee of the orbit up to 100 nautical miles.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/07/mission-trajectory-sarafin-outlines-ride-uphill-em-1/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/22/2017 10:36 pm
The cost saving on the first stage only SLS is not having to buy an ICPS. I have a feeling that they will be very expensive.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/22/2017 10:57 pm
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/22/2017 11:42 pm
The cost saving on the first stage only SLS is not having to buy an ICPS. I have a feeling that they will be very expensive.

I wouldn't think so.  The ICPS is small has commonality with the Delta IV upper stage and uses engines used by other vehicles.  The core stage and SRBs, on the other hand, are big and have nothing in common with anything.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rst on 05/23/2017 01:44 am
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?

The crewed EM-1 proposal seems to be off the table for the moment.  Does the ICPS need to be man-rated if it's only going to be used on an uncrewed EM-1?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/23/2017 02:31 am
If all the political inertia could be shaken free, and if they are determined to continue putting money into it, and if they want to get a better ROI, and if they would actually fly it frequently, a more effective way to employ this LV would be to put as many of those reusable RS-25Ds as will fit on the core with an RL-10 (or something with appropriate thrust) in the center to use as a landing engine, put RTLS reusable liquid boosters on the sides, and develop an 8.6m multiple J-2X powered LUS. Then the three lower cores could be reused and only the LUS would have to be replaced on every launch. Core prop would need to be be expended early enough to survive reentry. After a fleet of cores and boosters are built, the line only builds more of the LUS and J-2X could go into production fairly easily. Then payload capacity would increase and cost per launch decrease. A time is coming in the not so distant future when all boosters and S1 cores are landable and reusable. This one either gets needed changes, or it gets cancelled as cheaper and equally capable other LVs come online. But I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 05/23/2017 03:05 am
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?

The crewed EM-1 proposal seems to be off the table for the moment.  Does the ICPS need to be man-rated if it's only going to be used on an uncrewed EM-1?

It does if its going to be used in an argument against the whole program!  (nothing is off the table in that case  ::) )  But thats really what this thread is now, people posting how much they hate everything and how it needs to be cancelled etc.  Repeat for 5+ years and probably through the missions too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/23/2017 06:51 am
For the record, SLS Block I is capable of putting 70 t of payload into a 185 x 1806 km orbit. Block IB is 93.1 t of payload into a 241 km circular orbit. The 105 t value that is often used for Block IB is the initial mass in low Earth orbit (IMLEO), which includes the dry mass of EUS. Data from

B. Donahue and S. Sigmon, "The Space Launch System capabilities with a new large upper stage," AIAA Space 2013.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/23/2017 07:00 am
...the 130-t variant has five RS-25's, an upper stage with three J-2X's and possibly a Delta IV upper stage.

My early simulations show that a third J-2X with five RS-25D engines actually decreases performance. This is mostly because of the large mass of J-2X of about 2.5 t each. It does gives you engine out capability though. Neither configuration actually gets 130 t to LEO.

2xRSRMV + 5xRS-25D + 2xJ-2X = 123.7 t
2xRSRMV + 5xRS-25D + 3xJ-2X = 122.2 t
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 05/23/2017 07:40 am
There aren't any missions, thats the whole problem. We could have had Shuttle C for a fraction of the cost.

[edit/gongora: hyperbole removed]

If Congress/Trump/NASA announced tomorrow that we are going to Mars, there are concrete plans that can be funded to build a lander and all the other stuff we will need for the journey, then 95% of the hate for the program would evaporate instantly.

As it is, the SLS is viewed as an expensive, pointless diversion from where we need to be going. When the support for the program wanes and it is eventually cancelled, then we are going to have to start the whole process over again for a system that we can afford and that we will actually use to explore the solar system.

The perception is that the SLS is going to delay any real attempt at exploring space (not counting private space) by at least 10 years, if not more. That is why there is all the hate.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/23/2017 11:09 am
There will be only one ICPS. And it's probably adding $2 billion to the program between man rating and infrastructure costs. But I'm not sure that flying without it is much cheaper... Besides, what weighs 80 tonnes and needs to go to LEO in one launch?

The crewed EM-1 proposal seems to be off the table for the moment.  Does the ICPS need to be man-rated if it's only going to be used on an uncrewed EM-1?

It does if its going to be used in an argument against the whole program!  (nothing is off the table in that case  ::) )  But thats really what this thread is now, people posting how much they hate everything and how it needs to be cancelled etc.  Repeat for 5+ years and probably through the missions too.
My point was that the ICPS is not a substantial fraction of the ongoing cost of SLS, and that eliminating it doesn't make operations any cheaper. But regardless of whether it's man rated or very expensive, flying ICPS once is pointless. NASA should proceed immediately to EUS and accept the delay.

Edit: and NASA should flight test EUS before putting crew on it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/23/2017 02:52 pm
SLS is not really a bad vehicle. It's the NASA/congress decisions that have caused the slow schedule (flying a early version [SLS-1A] just to fly slightly earlier than a full up operational version [SLS-1B]). This decision actually will delay the program's first manned flight by years (3 to 4 to be exact). If there had never been a expediency version to lower the yearly development costs and to fly one vehicle by 2017 (which is now going to be NET sometime probably late 2019), then the first two missions EM-1 and EM-2 could have occurred no more than 1 year apart. The target date could have been 2018 in the beginning because of the development of the EUS added to the rest of the development. No spending twice on the GSE mods/designing/vehicle development to be able to support one version that now will only fly once and then the upgraded version. This will cause not quite a doubling of the cost of development but it will be quite a significant higher cost that could have been avoided.

The program is a Congressional directed program leaving the program managers no room for making good decisions that save money and time. It causes frustration in the Space community as well as within NASA. As time has progressed this frustration level has only increased as more and more forced decisions results to the program costs and schedule delays become apparent.

This is why there is such discord with the pace and spending on this program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/23/2017 03:16 pm
When did Congress direct the ICPS? Congress mandated a system that can launch 64,000 kg to LEO without an upper stage. SLS without ICPS is that system. If NASA is actually trying to meet the congressional mandate, they should test launch an SLS core to LEO with a dummy payload under a fairing - then they would actually be testing a heavy LEO delivery system. Don't wait for Orion or ICPS or for the GSE updates to support any upper stage.

AIUI the only reason for ICPS is NASA's desire to test Orion BLEO as soon as possible - that is, before EUS would be available. But they aren't even testing a real Orion. Nor are they testing a real SLS or it's ground support. And at this point, it looks like EUS could be ready (if they proceeded immediately to working it) well before Orion is ready for an actual all-up test flight.

Wasting years and billions building a one-off test vehicle that's not actually the flight configuration (EM-1), and then launching crew on the first flight of the actual flight configuration (EM-2) is just insane. Test what you fly and fly what you test.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/23/2017 03:25 pm
In my opinion, NASA should be the technical authority on this development program.  When design was 'dictated' by the Senate, NASA should have done a technical and budgetary analysis and provided 'facts and figures' back to Congress with a strong recommendation for how the program should be implemented.  Instead, there was a quick salute, a sigh of relief, and spending commenced. 

If all the organization is going to be is a rubber stamp and funds dispersal mechanism, they shouldn't need the army of federal employees.  Yes, they do some important insight/oversight (though it is not keeping the program from large and costly blunders), but big picture leadership and technical authority is their primary responsibility.

SLS/Orion is adrift, because NASA is too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 05/23/2017 03:58 pm
When did Congress direct the ICPS? Congress mandated a system that can launch 64,000 kg to LEO without an upper stage. SLS without ICPS is that system. If NASA is actually trying to meet the congressional mandate, they should test launch an SLS core to LEO with a dummy payload under a fairing - then they would actually be testing a heavy LEO delivery system. Don't wait for Orion or ICPS or for the GSE updates to support any upper stage.

AIUI the only reason for ICPS is NASA's desire to test Orion BLEO as soon as possible - that is, before EUS would be available. But they aren't even testing a real Orion. Nor are they testing a real SLS or it's ground support. And at this point, it looks like EUS could be ready (if they proceeded immediately to working it) well before Orion is ready for an actual all-up test flight.

Wasting years and billions building a one-off test vehicle that's not actually the flight configuration (EM-1), and then launching crew on the first flight of the actual flight configuration (EM-2) is just insane. Test what you fly and fly what you test.

Yes, the ICPS was Bolden's way of ensuring that SLS was for "deep space" missions, or nothing at all. It was all about Orion and manned missions, nothing about LEO and ISS capability that Congress mandated in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. I pointed out way back when SLS was first announced the ICPS was a horrible design for SLS. It limits the payload fairing size to 5m, assuming it ever flew without Orion. It is undersized for the core stage, leaving lots of capacity on the table. And it isn't even man-rated, so why the heck are they even putting it under an Orion? Pure short-sightedness.

But you are correct, Congress never mentioned ICPS, or any interim configuration at all. The law specified an initial payload capacity of 70 tons (not "tonnes" or "metric tons") to LEO using just the core elements (core plus boosters). With the addition of an "integrated upper Earth departure stage", SLS was to have a total capacity (meaning IMLEO, not payload) of 130 tons (and still not "tonnes" or "metric tons"). NASA interpreting "tons" as "tonnes" was innocuous, yet devastating. And interpreting "total capacity" as payload instead of IMLEO was a stroke of evil genius

Sometimes it seems to me that the year-long wait for SLS to be announced was due to the effort in finding the slowest, most inefficient, and wasteful way of building SLS possible. That kind of creativity takes time. :)  I mean, only the most sinister evil villain would think of designing the ML tower for Block-1, and then having to totally redesign and rebuild it for the first flight of Block-1B. That's a three-year flight gap between block 1 and 1B versions, at least! Bwahahahaha.....

But having said all that, I still believe SLS is the way to go, once ICPS is finally dead (after one flight or none) and EUS takes over. It will take longer and cost more, due to ill-conceived efforts to make SLS fly sooner and cost less. But as they say (in bad Latin), "Illegitimi non carborundum."

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/23/2017 04:11 pm
SLS is not really a bad vehicle. It's the NASA/congress decisions that have caused the slow schedule (flying a early version [SLS-1A] just to fly slightly earlier than a full up operational version [SLS-1B]). This decision actually will delay the program's first manned flight by years (3 to 4 to be exact). If there had never been a expediency version to lower the yearly development costs and to fly one vehicle by 2017 (which is now going to be NET sometime probably late 2019), then the first two missions EM-1 and EM-2 could have occurred no more than 1 year apart. The target date could have been 2018 in the beginning because of the development of the EUS added to the rest of the development. No spending twice on the GSE mods/designing/vehicle development to be able to support one version that now will only fly once and then the upgraded version. This will cause not quite a doubling of the cost of development but it will be quite a significant higher cost that could have been avoided.

The program is a Congressional directed program leaving the program managers no room for making good decisions that save money and time. It causes frustration in the Space community as well as within NASA. As time has progressed this frustration level has only increased as more and more forced decisions results to the program costs and schedule delays become apparent.

This is why there is such discord with the pace and spending on this program.

Nitpick (of some consequence):  The 2010 NASA Authorization Act that defines SLS calls for it to be operational to LEO by the end of 2016.  That implies, and the Act specifically envisions, test flights before then.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/23/2017 04:25 pm
What's the timeline for the 8.4m fairing? Would it be feasible for SLS to launch anything useful at all to anywhere before a crew-ready Orion becomes available for a test flight?

Moving Europa Clipper before EM-2 at least flight-tests the EUS before putting crew on it, though at the risk of launching a multi-billion dollar on a test flight and at the additional cost of pushing the first crewed SLS flight even further to the right, and still on the first crew configuration vehicle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 05/23/2017 05:44 pm
If all the political inertia could be shaken free, and if they are determined to continue putting money into it, and if they want to get a better ROI, and if they would actually fly it frequently, a more effective way to employ this LV would be to put as many of those reusable RS-25Ds as will fit on the core with an RL-10 (or something with appropriate thrust) in the center to use as a landing engine, put RTLS reusable liquid boosters on the sides, and develop an 8.6m multiple J-2X powered LUS. Then the three lower cores could be reused and only the LUS would have to be replaced on every launch. Core prop would need to be be expended early enough to survive reentry. After a fleet of cores and boosters are built, the line only builds more of the LUS and J-2X could go into production fairly easily. Then payload capacity would increase and cost per launch decrease. A time is coming in the not so distant future when all boosters and S1 cores are landable and reusable. This one either gets needed changes, or it gets cancelled as cheaper and equally capable other LVs come online. But I'm not holding my breath.

An RL-10 would be way too small (only 25klbf thrust). But five or six RS-25 engines around a center J2X would be just the thing. The J2X is restartable and throttleable, and the thrust range is in the ballpark, depending on how heavy the landing gear and other mods would be. Land the core on a converted drilling platform somewhere far down range. Voila, reusable core stage, with proven reusable engines. Oh, and add chutes back onto the boosters, which would make them reusable and save the cost of developing new LRBs. And as you stated, EUS would be too small in that configuration, you would need a second stage with multiple J2X engines to get the payload to orbit.

Mark S.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/23/2017 06:17 pm
If all the political inertia could be shaken free, and if they are determined to continue putting money into it, and if they want to get a better ROI, and if they would actually fly it frequently, a more effective way to employ this LV would be to put as many of those reusable RS-25Ds as will fit on the core with an RL-10 (or something with appropriate thrust) in the center to use as a landing engine, put RTLS reusable liquid boosters on the sides, and develop an 8.6m multiple J-2X powered LUS. Then the three lower cores could be reused and only the LUS would have to be replaced on every launch. Core prop would need to be be expended early enough to survive reentry. After a fleet of cores and boosters are built, the line only builds more of the LUS and J-2X could go into production fairly easily. Then payload capacity would increase and cost per launch decrease. A time is coming in the not so distant future when all boosters and S1 cores are landable and reusable. This one either gets needed changes, or it gets cancelled as cheaper and equally capable other LVs come online. But I'm not holding my breath.

An RL-10 would be way too small (only 25klbf thrust). But five or six RS-25 engines around a center J2X would be just the thing. The J2X is restartable and throttleable, and the thrust range is in the ballpark, depending on how heavy the landing gear and other mods would be. Land the core on a converted drilling platform somewhere far down range. Voila, reusable core stage, with proven reusable engines. Oh, and add chutes back onto the boosters, which would make them reusable and save the cost of developing new LRBs. And as you stated, EUS would be too small in that configuration, you would need a second stage with multiple J2X engines to get the payload to orbit.

Mark S.

The J2X isn't really throttleable:

Quote
The J-2X can perform a single step down in thrust level. This capability can be used to minimize vehicle loads or as part of a propellant utilization system since the throttle is accomplished via a mixture ratio shift.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2013/08/06/inside-the-leo-doghouse-rs-25-vs-j-2x/

Great article, worth a read.

SRBs aren't worth recovering, period. But 6 RS-25 on the core is enough thrust for smaller reuseable LRBs to be viable without new main propulsion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 05/23/2017 07:37 pm

An RL-10 would be way too small (only 25klbf thrust). But five or six RS-25 engines around a center J2X would be just the thing. The J2X is restartable and throttleable, and the thrust range is in the ballpark, depending on how heavy the landing gear and other mods would be. Land the core on a converted drilling platform somewhere far down range. Voila, reusable core stage, with proven reusable engines. Oh, and add chutes back onto the boosters, which would make them reusable and save the cost of developing new LRBs. And as you stated, EUS would be too small in that configuration, you would need a second stage with multiple J2X engines to get the payload to orbit.

Mark S.

The J2X isn't really throttleable:

Quote
The J-2X can perform a single step down in thrust level. This capability can be used to minimize vehicle loads or as part of a propellant utilization system since the throttle is accomplished via a mixture ratio shift.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/J2X/2013/08/06/inside-the-leo-doghouse-rs-25-vs-j-2x/

Great article, worth a read.

SRBs aren't worth recovering, period. But 6 RS-25 on the core is enough thrust for smaller reuseable LRBs to be viable without new main propulsion.

That was indeed a good read. I still think J2X would be the closest engine currently available to fit this role, even if it needs to be re-qualified with more discrete throttling levels. And operation without the expansion nozzle, since that would not survive at sea level operation.

Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available. And they can't make new ones, it's a lost art or something. (Complex liquid fueled rocket engines with 1000s of parts, no problem. Dumb steel motor casings, can't be done!) Fancy new fly-back LRBs would be great, NASA can start on them as soon as SLS is fully operational with a recoverable core, large upper stage, and a functional Orion.

Thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/23/2017 07:57 pm
...Or perhaps it would be better to start with a clean sheet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: hkultala on 05/23/2017 07:59 pm
That was indeed a good read. I still think J2X would be the closest engine currently available to fit this role, even if it needs to be re-qualified with more discrete throttling levels. And operation without the expansion nozzle, since that would not survive at sea level operation.

It's not about qualification. It's about it being UNABLE to throttle well enough.

BE-3 would be most plausible option, but multiple of those would be needed.


But this kind of "my hyphothetical launch vehicle" discussions should be in their own thread, not in SLS thread.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/24/2017 08:03 am
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.

They are called RSRMV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TomH on 05/24/2017 04:58 pm
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.

They are called RSRMV.

And there are enough for 10 flights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/24/2017 05:47 pm
Also, I think it would be worth recovering the SRBs (or RSRMs or whatever the correct acronym is at the moment) because supposedly no more steel casings are available.

They are called RSRMV.

And there are enough for 10 flights.

10 sets will last the program up to around 2030.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/28/2017 01:02 am
10x launches of the Shuttle C-based 'Side Mount' heavy launcher would have been enough till a replacement Commercial launcher became available. In fact; a slightly upgraded Falcon Heavy could have been that vehicle - or the New Glenn; all roughly the same capability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-Derived_Heavy_Lift_Launch_Vehicle

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDGBxP3rYWw
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/28/2017 01:16 am
...But obviously, a Block-II and beyond SLS would be more capable. The above post & info is for context.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jgoldader on 05/28/2017 10:59 am
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/361842main_15%20-%20Augustine%20Sidemount%20Final.pdf

Wistful sigh...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/30/2017 04:50 pm
A more capable LV could be available with shorter lead time... FH. Just sayin'.  :)
More like " Just dreamin' ".

Hmmm. I wonder Ghost. Why “Just dreamin’”? The only “issue” I see is whether or not Orion could be horizontally integrated. I don’t know if that question has even been considered. The way things are now, Orion will only fly when an SLS flies, so it’s not just the launch vehicle that will take decades to shake out at the projected flight rate. The spacecraft will also take those same decades. NASA is not on a good path here wrt HSF so long as they continue to insist that “their” spacecraft can only fly on “their” launch vehicle; which btw, costs $1 billion a pop to light. FH is certainly more than capable of lifting a full-up Orion to LEO.

Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT. 
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT     
FH LEO performance:    63.8 mT

That’s 22.0 mT of MARGIN – every spacecraft designer’s dream! And don't forget that the flight mass drops by 7.3 mT as soon as the LAS is jettisoned, increasing what can actually reach orbit. That’s more than the mass of a full-up and fully fueled Apollo CSM! With that much margin, what could NASA load in the Payload Adapter shroud beneath the spacecraft for the mission? What kind of missions could such a capable Orion spacecraft perform if it arrived in LEO with all the propellant tanks full?

I think it would be a smart thing for NASA to allow for Orion to be carried aloft by a Falcon Heavy as well as the SLS. It gives them options, instead of narrow restrictions.

It's hard to argue successfully against options and margin.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 05/30/2017 05:45 pm
From what I see the delay's in FH coming on line are that F9 has gone through several upgrades, the launch facilities at 39A were delayed in coming on line, pad 40 has had to be restored for F9 launches, and SpaceX has had to perfect the landings.  All of this takes time, not just the launch vehicle itself. 

With the right adapter, Orion can fit on FH.  They already have a 5m fairing.  FH will also be man rated. 

Atlas can't really do it, Delta IV heavy is hard pressed and not man rated.  That only leaves FH that is soon to be coming on line.  Maybe New Glenn in a few years. 

$1 billion just to launch 4 people into orbit, isn't good for my tax dollars.  Just pay SpaceX to do it cheaper.  Use SLS for deep space probes or 100 ton modules for some type of deep space habitat or Mars vehicle and take 10 years to build it with one launch per year.  Direct sounds better and better from a taxpayers point of view.  Now with rocket re-usability, SLS and even Direct are expensive.  Even if FH has a $300,000 or $400,000 price tag for Orion, it's still far cheaper.  Even at that with full expendable mode version 5 of FH, plus a F9 tanker to refuel the 2nd stage, you could probably throw Orion around the moon cheaper.     
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/30/2017 08:38 pm
Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT. 
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT     
...

I don't think this is correct. Orion is intended to have 1250 to 1300 m/s of delta-v plus margins, but this mass total (34.5 t fueled after discarding LAS, and 25.2 t dry) only allows <1000 m/s with 319s specific impulse.

If the fueled mass is 25.2 t after discarding LAS and 15.9 tonnes dry then it has 1440 m/s delta-v. Much more in line with Orion's expected capabilities.

I think the mass of stage adapters and SM fairings is also missing, and has to be accounted for to fly on an EELV class rocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/31/2017 08:18 am
Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT. 
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT     
...

I don't think this is correct. Orion is intended to have 1250 to 1300 m/s of delta-v plus margins, but this mass total (34.5 t fueled after discarding LAS, and 25.2 t dry) only allows <1000 m/s with 319s specific impulse.

If the fueled mass is 25.2 t after discarding LAS and 15.9 tonnes dry then it has 1440 m/s delta-v. Much more in line with Orion's expected capabilities.

I think the mass of stage adapters and SM fairings is also missing, and has to be accounted for to fly on an EELV class rocket.
Chuck has the figures for the SM off. It's mass is 15.5 mT INCLUDING propellant. (6.2 mT dry weight).
Fully fueled weight of Orion (with Crew + supplies, but without LAS) ~ 27 mT.
A sub-fueled one with just two Crew members and reduced supplies for short LEO mission weighs approx. 4mT less.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 05/31/2017 03:06 pm
The FH can only handle payload of around 25mt (see FH thread). The 63mt to LEO is performance figure. Orion needs to go to BLEO, we have CC vehicles for LEO.

BLEO will require US refuelling as mentioned, like it was a simple thing to do. Refuelling a RP1 stage is very complex. Most important thing is US endurance required of tanker and payload US, days if not weeks for tanker. Then there is rendezvous, LOX and RP1 transfer, N gas for thrusters and He for tank pressurization.

US needs additional thrusters rendezvous.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 05/31/2017 03:24 pm
Capsule: 10.4 mT, Service Module: 15.5 mT, SM Propellant: 9.3 mT, LAS: 7.3 mT, 4 Crew + supplies: 1.0 mT. 
Orion Spacecraft Total: 41.8 mT     
...

I don't think this is correct. Orion is intended to have 1250 to 1300 m/s of delta-v plus margins, but this mass total (34.5 t fueled after discarding LAS, and 25.2 t dry) only allows <1000 m/s with 319s specific impulse.

If the fueled mass is 25.2 t after discarding LAS and 15.9 tonnes dry then it has 1440 m/s delta-v. Much more in line with Orion's expected capabilities.

I think the mass of stage adapters and SM fairings is also missing, and has to be accounted for to fly on an EELV class rocket.
Chuck has the figures for the SM off. It's mass is 15.5 mT INCLUDING propellant. (6.2 mT dry weight).
Fully fueled weight of Orion (with Crew + supplies, but without LAS) ~ 27 mT.
A sub-fueled one with just two Crew members and reduced supplies for short LEO mission weighs approx. 4mT less.
So which of the following stated values for SLS 1B is the right one to use 39.2mt to TLI or 45mt to EM-2. Your values for Orion + SM is 42.5mt. That leaves just 2.5mt for a rideshare payload to EM-2. Something is wrong about these numbers if NASA keeps saying it can launch DSG elemnts with Orion to  a Lunar orbit as long as the DSG element is <10mt.

But this extremely heavy Orion+SM makes the case that the propellant in the SM would be mostly used up to overcome the SLS-1B payload shortfall leaving only enough to do the TEI burn for just the Orion+SM.

So is there some conflict between the planning values and actual capability values?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tvg98 on 05/31/2017 04:03 pm
https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/869943653766180868 (https://twitter.com/nova_road/status/869943653766180868)

Quote
So it turns out there will be crew on SLS/Orion EM-1: Living, breathing plants. They will help study the effects of radiation.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/01/2017 08:14 am
So which of the following stated values for SLS 1B is the right one to use 39.2mt to TLI or 45mt to EM-2. Your values for Orion + SM is 42.5mt. That leaves just 2.5mt for a rideshare payload to EM-2. Something is wrong about these numbers if NASA keeps saying it can launch DSG elemnts with Orion to  a Lunar orbit as long as the DSG element is <10mt.

The Boeing Sep. 2013 paper says 39.1 t to TLI for Block IB.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 06/06/2017 09:31 am
This seems to have gone missing, so repost.

[... rocket comparison table]

Original post got moved to start a new thread here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43073.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43073.0)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 07/12/2017 02:16 am
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 07/12/2017 02:19 am
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 07/12/2017 02:56 am
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?

As far as the latest, its still set for SLS launch by law.  There seems to be some hope to fly it before EM-2, but it could also fly after it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 07/12/2017 03:16 am
Thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/12/2017 08:53 am
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?

As far as the latest, its still set for SLS launch by law.  There seems to be some hope to fly it before EM-2, but it could also fly after it.

It's my understanding that JPL has not yet selected the launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1661466#msg1661466).  If I am out of date or otherwise wrong, I would very much appreciate a pointer to the correct information.

Another thing that would be interesting to know is the precise legal language connecting SLS with Europa Clipper.  Is is something like the requirement in the 2010 Authorization Act that Shuttle-derived hardware shall be used "to the maximum extent practicable"?  In other words, to what extent has Congress predetermined the conclusions that JPL's engineers will reach?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/12/2017 09:21 am
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....
  [Quote truncated by Proponent]

But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.

It's a perfectly reasonable statement, given that:

1. The mission is being undertaken only after SLS's development has consumed over $10 billion and five years;
2. There has been (correct me if I'm wrong) no consideration of accomplishing the same thing without SLS;
3. A DSH seems reasonable only in the current context: had it been proposed in 2011 as a 15-year-horizon objective for SLS, it would have seemed ridiculous for being so underwhelming.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 07/12/2017 10:53 am
Everyone's talking a lot about EM-1 and EM-2, but where does Europa Clipper fit into the schedule currently? Is it even slated for an SLS launch anymore?

As far as the latest, its still set for SLS launch by law.  There seems to be some hope to fly it before EM-2, but it could also fly after it.

It's my understanding that JPL has not yet selected the launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1661466#msg1661466).  If I am out of date or otherwise wrong, I would very much appreciate a pointer to the correct information.

Another thing that would be interesting to know is the precise legal language connecting SLS with Europa Clipper.  Is is something like the requirement in the 2010 Authorization Act that Shuttle-derived hardware shall be used "to the maximum extent practicable"?  In other words, to what extent has Congress predetermined the conclusions that JPL's engineers will reach?

H.R. 244 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017 became Public Law 115-31 on May 5, 2017.  It contains the following text regarding the Europa Mission under the NASA Science Section (page 78 of the attached bill):

"[…] Provided further, That, of the amounts provided, $275,000,000 is for an orbiter and a lander to meet the science goals for the Jupiter Europa mission as outlined in the most recent planetary science decadal survey: Provided further, That the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall use the Space Launch System as the launch vehicle or vehicles for the Jupiter Europa mission, plan for an orbiter launch no later than 2022 and a lander launch no later than 2024, and include in the fiscal year 2018 budget the 5-year funding profile necessary to achieve these goals."

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf (https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/hr244/BILLS-115hr244enr.pdf)

[copy of H.R.244 also attached]
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/12/2017 12:03 pm
OK, so it sounds like Congress has in fact determined what JPL will conclude.  There isn't even any wiggle room, like "to the extent practicable."

[joke]
Once again, America is very fortunate to have such brilliant and omniscient politicians, capable of performing in-depth technical analyses!  Who needs engineers or scientists!
[/joke]
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SweetWater on 07/12/2017 12:56 pm
OK, so it sounds like Congress has in fact determined what JPL will conclude.  There isn't even any wiggle room, like "to the extent practicable."

[joke]
Once again, America is very fortunate to have such brilliant and omniscient politicians, capable of performing in-depth technical analyses!  Who needs engineers or scientists!
[/joke]

Congressional representatives have to find something to use SLS for if they want to justify keeping it - and the jobs it provides in their districts - in production. The Deep Space Gateway and missions like the Europa orbiter and lander accomplish that goal. To the people doling out the money, IMHO, the engineering and science are secondary considerations (if that).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/12/2017 05:26 pm
OK, so it sounds like Congress has in fact determined what JPL will conclude.  There isn't even any wiggle room, like "to the extent practicable."

[joke]
Once again, America is very fortunate to have such brilliant and omniscient politicians, capable of performing in-depth technical analyses!  Who needs engineers or scientists!
[/joke]

Congressional representatives have to find something to use SLS for if they want to justify keeping it - and the jobs it provides in their districts - in production. The Deep Space Gateway and missions like the Europa orbiter and lander accomplish that goal. To the people doling out the money, IMHO, the engineering and science are secondary considerations (if that).
The leagal wording mixed with reality in the Orion EM-2 scheduling would then create a launch order of
EM-1 NET 2019
EC-1 NET 2022
EM-2 NET 2023
EC-2 NET 2024

But then EM-3 because it now must wait on a new RS-25E engine would have a NET of 2026. At at only 2 engines/yr the rest of the decade unless congress fixes this engine delivery bottleneck with significant funding:
EM-4 NET 2028
with EM-5 NET 2030.

Only a possible 7 total launches before 2030. Unless Congress funds manufacturing upgrades to be able to build them faster. And that effort must start 5-7 years prior to 2024. Which is no latter than the 2019 budget year. In reality they should have already been working on fixing the engine build rate problem.

ADDED:
This is the truly sad part and that is due to build rate limitations causing flight rate limitations and very low usability the cost per flight of SLS alone including all funds spent between 2012 and before 2030 is $4.4B/flight. This is a program period of 18 years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/12/2017 05:31 pm
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?

I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/12/2017 06:36 pm
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....
  [Quote truncated by Proponent]

But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.

It's a perfectly reasonable statement, given that:

1. The mission is being undertaken only after SLS's development has consumed over $10 billion and five years;

This would be true for any SLS mission being considered, hence Khadgar's comment.

Quote
]2. There has been (correct me if I'm wrong) no consideration of accomplishing the same thing without SLS;

Politically there hasn't been much consideration of other launch vehicles. That said there has been consideration by JPL and others. SLS does have distinct advantages in terms of getting the payload to Europa in much less time and is well suited for launching the heavier lander.

Quote
3. A DSH seems reasonable only in the current context: had it been proposed in 2011 as a 15-year-horizon objective for SLS, it would have seemed ridiculous for being so underwhelming.

Because proposing no destination, then half heartedly proposing to go to a NEA, and then proposing ARM was so much more exciting? I would have been thrilled if they had gone with DSG from the get go. It offers the prospect of sustainable lunar orbital and surface missions as well as learning how to be less dependent on Earth for future Mars missions.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/12/2017 06:48 pm
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?

I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.

Wel, if we are going to talk paint jobs, I liked the white with roll patterns.  Call me old fashioned.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 07/12/2017 06:57 pm
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?

I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
I think less money wasted on cosmetic nonsense looks slick.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ZachF on 07/13/2017 01:43 pm
Also, we're pretty convinced the SRBs won't be painted (like the Falcon 9 and FH landing legs from those old renders), right?

I hope they are painted, at least for the EM-1 mission. I think the SRB swoops look slick.
I think less money wasted on cosmetic nonsense looks slick.

By the time this thing flies we will have already spent the GDP of a small country on it, whats a cool paint job?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/13/2017 05:53 pm
However this launch still feels like people were finding something for the SLS to do whilst the Deep Space Habitat modules are developed....
  [Quote truncated by Proponent]

But you will say this no matter what mission is selected for SLS.

It's a perfectly reasonable statement, given that:

1. The mission is being undertaken only after SLS's development has consumed over $10 billion and five years;

This would be true for any SLS mission being considered, hence Khadgar's comment.

It wouldn't be true for a mission to the surface of either the moon or Mars or possibly a free-range asteroid.  Those things have been discussed for decades, and nobody would suggest they'd been dreamed up to give SLS something to do.

Quote
Quote
2. There has been (correct me if I'm wrong) no consideration of accomplishing the same thing without SLS;

Politically there hasn't been much consideration of other launch vehicles. That said there has been consideration by JPL and others. SLS does have distinct advantages in terms of getting the payload to Europa in much less time and is well suited for launching the heavier lander.

Atlas V has advantages too.  But the point here is not that one vehicle is better than the other, it's the manner in which a vehicle is selected.  While JPL says it's trading SLS against Atlas V for Europa Clipper, the law apparently requires SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1701624#msg1701624).  When the decisions are made by politicians, SLS inevitably carries the stench of politics, even if it really is the better vehicle for the job, and SLS's congressional boosters have only themselves to blame for that (not that they see it as a blameworthy thing, so far as I can tell).

Quote
Quote
3. A DSH seems reasonable only in the current context: had it been proposed in 2011 as a 15-year-horizon objective for SLS, it would have seemed ridiculous for being so underwhelming.

Because proposing no destination, then half heartedly proposing to go to a NEA, and then proposing ARM was so much more exciting?

When Sens. Nelson, Hutchison et al. sold SLS in 2010, they were vague as to its purpose but implicitly promised missions to the moon or Mars.  That's the appropriate standard against which the DSG should be measured.  Asteroid redirect was just another example of a mission dreamed up to give SLS something to do.

Quote
I would have been thrilled if they had gone with DSG from the get go. It offers the prospect of sustainable lunar orbital and surface missions as well as learning how to be less dependent on Earth for future Mars missions.

I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get?  I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010.  Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it.  The goal posts have been moved much closer.

if DSG were just part of an actual, costed plan to do something more significant, I could get more excited about it.  But it isn't.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 07/13/2017 08:11 pm
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get?  I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010.  Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it.  The goal posts have been moved much closer.

if DSG were just part of an actual, costed plan to do something more significant, I could get more excited about it.  But it isn't.

Related:

Quote
"I can't put a date on humans to Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent budget increase, we don't have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/)

If it is ultimately about the "Journey to Mars" and DSG/SLS/Orion can't get boots on Mars within any timeframe using realistic, foreseeable budgets...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/13/2017 08:35 pm
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get?  I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010.  Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it.  The goal posts have been moved much closer.

if DSG were just part of an actual, costed plan to do something more significant, I could get more excited about it.  But it isn't.

Related:

Quote
"I can't put a date on humans to Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent budget increase, we don't have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier...

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/nasa-finally-admits-it-doesnt-have-the-funding-to-land-humans-on-mars/)

If it is ultimately about the "Journey to Mars" and DSG/SLS/Orion can't get boots on Mars within any timeframe using realistic, foreseeable budgets...

None of DSG/SLS/Orion are going to leave Earth orbit. So yeah, they won't be nearly enough to get boots on Mars. Transit, EDL, surface ops, ascent, return capabilities are all missing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/13/2017 09:09 pm
“Criticism is something we can avoid easily by saying nothing, doing nothing, and being nothing.”
– Aristotle
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/13/2017 09:46 pm

This would be true for any SLS mission being considered, hence Khadgar's comment.

It wouldn't be true for a mission to the surface of either the moon or Mars or possibly a free-range asteroid.  Those things have been discussed for decades, and nobody would suggest they'd been dreamed up to give SLS something to do.

The idea of a lunar/EML2 space station has been around just as long as moon or Mars missions. Plus, since this capability can easily lead to lunar surface missions, I wouldn't say that the DSG is just a "make work program" for SLS. It will restore a capability that hasn't been available for 45 years.

Quote
Atlas V has advantages too.  But the point here is not that one vehicle is better than the other, it's the manner in which a vehicle is selected.  While JPL says it's trading SLS against Atlas V for Europa Clipper, the law apparently requires SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1701624#msg1701624).  When the decisions are made by politicians, SLS inevitably carries the stench of politics, even if it really is the better vehicle for the job, and SLS's congressional boosters have only themselves to blame for that (not that they see it as a blameworthy thing, so far as I can tell).

As long as NASA gets its funding and authority from the US federal government there is no avoiding the political angle. The only reason Europa Clipper is going to fly in the first place is due to politics (i.e. Rep. Culberson). If SLS carries the "stench of politics" then EC does too.

Here is what JPL director Michael Watkins has to say on the subject:

Quote from: Michael Watkins
we’re the biggest fans of SLS, bigger than anybody. Shortens travel times for outer solar system missions.

I agree with you that political interference can be quite detrimental. That said, there is no way to completely eliminate political interference from a government agency. I would rather have a little interference and a Europa mission than no political interference and no funding for the Europa mission.

Quote
When Sens. Nelson, Hutchison et al. sold SLS in 2010, they were vague as to its purpose but implicitly promised missions to the moon or Mars.  That's the appropriate standard against which the DSG should be measured.  Asteroid redirect was just another example of a mission dreamed up to give SLS something to do.

Well one of the reasons SLS was "sold" in 2010 was because there were no real deep space plans at all at that point. Traditionally, it has been the President who decides on the destination, not Congress. That is a debate for another thread though.

To say any mission except landings on the Moon and or Mars is only a "make work program" then you have to say the vast majority of the history of space exploration, including current ISS operations and commercial crew, is just a "make work program." I disagree.

Quote
I too see some value in DSG, but, really, after 15 years and $40-50 billion dollars, that's all we get?  I just don't see how that proposition would have made a credible sales pitch in 2010.  Even if you lop five years off the timetable and $15 billion off the cost, I still don't get it.  The goal posts have been moved much closer.

I think we should be grateful to even get a DSG given the last 45 years of LEO bound flight. Yes, it may not be everything we want but it is achievable in an era where spaceflight is on the backburner of priorities. ISS came within one vote of being canned back in the 90s. If that had happened we probably wouldn't have commercial crew or anything else to look forward to as far as US spaceflight is concerned.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 07/13/2017 10:33 pm
Nicely said Endeavour, I very much agree.   Too often perfect is the enemy of good.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/15/2017 01:15 am
I've recently looked into the DSG plans and while I generally like space stations it seems to me that "co-manifesting" early modules with Orion throws away the single biggest advantage of a heavy lift rocket: the ability to launch large pieces of hardware. What I see is that EM-2 to EM-5 will launch Orion and a small module in the <10 ton range, then EM-6 is the first cargo-only flight of ~40tons! Wouldn't that module be far more capable that 4 smaller ones?

This architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components. But at least there you had the excuse that the Shuttle-C was never developed.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/15/2017 02:12 am
I wouldn't say that the DSG is just a "make work program" for SLS. It will restore a capability that hasn't been available for 45 years.

I don't see how you think it "restores" anything, since we have never had a reusable space station located close to our Moon. Maybe it's a logical extension to what we've been doing with the ISS, but it's something brand new for the U.S.

Quote
Well one of the reasons SLS was "sold" in 2010 was because there were no real deep space plans at all at that point.

There is no constitutional requirement to have "real deep space plans", nor any laws created by Congress to do such that I'm aware of. Where do you see this requirement coming from?

Quote
Traditionally, it has been the President who decides on the destination, not Congress.

If by "tradition" you mean that it happened once, OK. But otherwise I think you're assuming there are special rules that apply for all things "space" related.

Apollo was proposed by President Kennedy and Congress agreed - which is one of the two ways things get created into law. The other way, which is how the SLS and Orion were created, is the Congress ignores the wishes of the President and writes funding laws for what they want.

Quote
To say any mission except landings on the Moon and or Mars is only a "make work program" then you have to say the vast majority of the history of space exploration, including current ISS operations and commercial crew, is just a "make work program." I disagree.

In the case of the DSG we have proposals being made before there are clear requirements determined, so of course it looks like the DSG/DST proposal is being tailored to be a requirement that can only be satisfied by the SLS and Orion.

Of course no budget goals have been proposed, which we all know is usually an important factor in getting funded, nor has there been talk of exploring how such a requirement can be done with other alternatives. So if potentially lower-cost alternatives won't be considered, then that makes it look like the DSG/DST proposal is being specifically tailored to use the SLS and Orion.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Quote
I think we should be grateful to even get a DSG given the last 45 years of LEO bound flight.

We're all space enthusiasts here, so of course we would all cheer the ability to move humanity out into space. But how many NASA programs have we all seen that ultimate got cancelled? How many $Billions of taxpayer money has been spent and essentially wasted?

I don't care that it's been 45 years since we last left LEO, what I care about is that once we're in space (like we are now) that we don't retreat - that we only expand our footprint in space. And I'm concerned that the lack of transparency on the SLS and Orion will, after years and years of going down this path, prove to be too expensive for Congress to want to fund for operational use. Congress should have been demanding cost information before now, because waiting is not going to make the ultimate decision any easier to make.

Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/15/2017 03:50 am
I see is that EM-2 to EM-5 will launch Orion and a small module in the <10 ton range, then EM-6 is the first cargo-only flight of ~40tons! Wouldn't that module be far more capable that 4 smaller ones?

Personally I would rather see these smaller modules launched on a commercial rocket while SLS launches Orion co-manifested with a logistics module like the MPLMs. Might help extend mission times that way. On the other hand co-manifesting these small modules with Orion gives the advantage of using Orion/astros to connect them to the DSG. Don't need a propulsion system for these modules if they are attached to Orion.

Quote
This architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components. But at least there you had the excuse that the Shuttle-C was never developed.

Not if they keep it minimal. This architecture has only 5 or so assembly missions. ISS had much more than that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/15/2017 04:41 am
I don't see how you think it "restores" anything, since we have never had a reusable space station located close to our Moon. Maybe it's a logical extension to what we've been doing with the ISS, but it's something brand new for the U.S.

I was referring to restoring the ability to fly BLEO and land on the moon.

Quote
There is no constitutional requirement to have "real deep space plans", nor any laws created by Congress to do such that I'm aware of. Where do you see this requirement coming from?

There is no constitutional requirement to have a standing Army either, yet we have one. That is because having a standing Army is deemed by Congress to be essential to the security of the United States. Now obviously space exploration is a lower priority but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Being the leader in exploring new frontiers has benefited nations for centuries. Congress endorsed a deep space exploration program (CxP) twice before 2010. They may have agreed to terminate that particular program, but they continued to endorse deep space flight by NASA. See NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and subsequent bills.

Quote
If by "tradition" you mean that it happened once, OK. But otherwise I think you're assuming there are special rules that apply for all things "space" related.

Kennedy decided on the moon, Nixon decided on the shuttle and LEO, Reagan (and Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) decided on Space Station, Bush II decided on the moon. NASA is an executive agency, therefore the executive has a role to play in its operation.

Quote
In the case of the DSG we have proposals being made before there are clear requirements determined, so of course it looks like the DSG/DST proposal is being tailored to be a requirement that can only be satisfied by the SLS and Orion.

Not necessarily. Gerst has said that he wants commercial rockets participating in the DSG endeavor. There is no evidence that commercial rockets will have zero involvement in the DSG effort.

Quote
We're all space enthusiasts here, so of course we would all cheer the ability to move humanity out into space. But how many NASA programs have we all seen that ultimate got cancelled? How many $Billions of taxpayer money has been spent and essentially wasted?

A lot of those programs were canceled because of insufficient funding, which isn't all NASA's fault.

Quote
I don't care that it's been 45 years since we last left LEO, what I care about is that once we're in space (like we are now) that we don't retreat - that we only expand our footprint in space. And I'm concerned that the lack of transparency on the SLS and Orion will, after years and years of going down this path, prove to be too expensive for Congress to want to fund for operational use.


You may not care that its been 45 years since we left LEO, but I certainly do.

DSG will expand our footprint in space in the same way ISS has. Because of shuttle and ISS commercial cargo and commercial crew have become a reality. DSG will create the same kind of incentive for commercial development BLEO.
 
Quote
With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

But what many people mean when they say that is, "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company." That isn't a private sector effort, that is a government subsidy. Why should the government subsidize private companies to colonize space?

Personally I think that space exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases, etc.) should be the focus of government efforts. Actual space settlement (i.e. many people living and working in space) should be the focus of the private sector. Otherwise, space settlement will never become a reality IMHO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/15/2017 06:37 pm
I don't see how you think it "restores" anything, since we have never had a reusable space station located close to our Moon. Maybe it's a logical extension to what we've been doing with the ISS, but it's something brand new for the U.S.

I was referring to restoring the ability to fly BLEO and land on the moon.

Quote
There is no constitutional requirement to have "real deep space plans", nor any laws created by Congress to do such that I'm aware of. Where do you see this requirement coming from?

There is no constitutional requirement to have a standing Army either, yet we have one. That is because having a standing Army is deemed by Congress to be essential to the security of the United States. Now obviously space exploration is a lower priority but that doesn't mean it is worthless. Being the leader in exploring new frontiers has benefited nations for centuries. Congress endorsed a deep space exploration program (CxP) twice before 2010. They may have agreed to terminate that particular program, but they continued to endorse deep space flight by NASA. See NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and subsequent bills.

Quote
If by "tradition" you mean that it happened once, OK. But otherwise I think you're assuming there are special rules that apply for all things "space" related.

Kennedy decided on the moon, Nixon decided on the shuttle and LEO, Reagan (and Bush I, Clinton, Bush II) decided on Space Station, Bush II decided on the moon. NASA is an executive agency, therefore the executive has a role to play in its operation.

Quote
In the case of the DSG we have proposals being made before there are clear requirements determined, so of course it looks like the DSG/DST proposal is being tailored to be a requirement that can only be satisfied by the SLS and Orion.

Not necessarily. Gerst has said that he wants commercial rockets participating in the DSG endeavor. There is no evidence that commercial rockets will have zero involvement in the DSG effort.

Quote
We're all space enthusiasts here, so of course we would all cheer the ability to move humanity out into space. But how many NASA programs have we all seen that ultimate got cancelled? How many $Billions of taxpayer money has been spent and essentially wasted?

A lot of those programs were canceled because of insufficient funding, which isn't all NASA's fault.

Quote
I don't care that it's been 45 years since we last left LEO, what I care about is that once we're in space (like we are now) that we don't retreat - that we only expand our footprint in space. And I'm concerned that the lack of transparency on the SLS and Orion will, after years and years of going down this path, prove to be too expensive for Congress to want to fund for operational use.


You may not care that its been 45 years since we left LEO, but I certainly do.

DSG will expand our footprint in space in the same way ISS has. Because of shuttle and ISS commercial cargo and commercial crew have become a reality. DSG will create the same kind of incentive for commercial development BLEO.
 
Quote
With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

But what many people mean when they say that is, "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company." That isn't a private sector effort, that is a government subsidy. Why should the government subsidize private companies to colonize space?

Personally I think that space exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases, etc.) should be the focus of government efforts. Actual space settlement (i.e. many people living and working in space) should be the focus of the private sector. Otherwise, space settlement will never become a reality IMHO.
Yes on the last item. A gov set up base is somewhere prototyping and resource exploration excursions can be cheaply accomplished which is what investors are looking for and why there is very little such investment in in-space infrastructure today. This as a goal for both the gov in general and SLS in specific is the right direction.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: DreamyPickle on 07/15/2017 06:59 pm
I see is that EM-2 to EM-5 will launch Orion and a small module in the <10 ton range, then EM-6 is the first cargo-only flight of ~40tons! Wouldn't that module be far more capable that 4 smaller ones?

Personally I would rather see these smaller modules launched on a commercial rocket while SLS launches Orion co-manifested with a logistics module like the MPLMs.
I think it might be better if there was a way to launch Orion on another vehicle, this would allow using the full capacity of SLS for larger modules. The old Ares-V for cargo + Ares-I for crew allowed for much better mission architectures.

Quote
Quote
This architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components.
Not if they keep it minimal. This architecture has only 5 or so assembly missions. ISS had much more than that.
Most of the SLS missions currently listed for the next decade are for assembly of small components, until EM-6. If a dedicated cargo/habitat flight could be shifted to the left the DSG would be more capable.

Even better would be to build a deep-space-capable habitat up to the the maximum LEO capacity of ~100 tons and have it spiral itself outwards to the moon using electric propulsion. It would have to cross the Van Allen radiation belts but all-electric comsats are already dealing with that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/15/2017 07:22 pm

Even better would be to build a deep-space-capable habitat up to the the maximum LEO capacity of ~100 tons and have it spiral itself outwards to the moon using electric propulsion. It would have to cross the Van Allen radiation belts but all-electric comsats are already dealing with that.

100 tons is roughly the fueled and supplied mass of the DST. Whether it is launched fueled and supplied to LEO or relatively empty to TLI can be decided much closer to launch. Decisions on that can be deferred.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/16/2017 02:29 am
But what many people mean when they say that is, "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company." That isn't a private sector effort, that is a government subsidy. Why should the government subsidize private companies to colonize space?

Personally I think that space exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases, etc.) should be the focus of government efforts. Actual space settlement (i.e. many people living and working in space) should be the focus of the private sector. Otherwise, space settlement will never become a reality IMHO.

Whether government should support settlement is a fine topic but that's decades away, right now the government already admits it couldn't do exploration (i.e. the initial missions, bases) alone due to budget constraint, that's what's on the agenda today. What's the point of discussing settlement funding options when you couldn't even get there?

There's nothing wrong with "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company.", just make sure you use performance based milestones, only give high level requirement and sign up multiple companies to ensure competition and backup. This is what makes COTS successful and that's how USAF buys launches, if it's good enough for launching national security payloads, it should be good enough for NASA.

While SLS/Orion may be kept as a political comprise to enable the new approach, there's no question they are the wrong approach to enable anything in space, either exploration or settlement.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 07/16/2017 03:35 am

Whether government should support settlement is a fine topic but that's decades away

I was referring to those who think it is NASA's job to colonize space with large numbers of people. I would argue, based on history, that true colonization only occurs when private entities fund it. In contrast initial exploration missions have generally been funded by governmental sources. It is not NASA's job to colonize space. It is NASA's job to push the boundaries and create opportunities for commercial investment down the line.

Quote
There's nothing wrong with "shift the money from NASA and give it to x commercial company.", just make sure you use performance based milestones, only give high level requirement and sign up multiple companies to ensure competition and backup.

I am fine with the idea of NASA contracting deep space assets in a similar way to COTS and CCP. In fact I am convinced that fixed price contracts should be implemented to the maximum extent possible.

What I am opposed to is the notion that NASA should be completely cut out of the loop (i.e. a check just gets sent to SpaceX or whatever). We still need a national space agency that represents the US public and has interests other than just profit.

Also I support continuing SLS/Orion since so much progress has been made on them already, so much can be done with them if they are properly funded and managed, and they serve as a dissimilar redundancy to commercial plans.

Quote
While SLS/Orion may be kept as a political comprise to enable the new approach, there's no question they are the wrong approach to enable anything in space, either exploration or settlement.

I disagree that SLS/Orion are the wrong approach to enable exploration. Right now they are the only deep space architecture funded by Congress. Used properly they can open up cis-lunar space (via DSG) as well as get us on the road to Mars orbit (via DST).

Personally I hope SLS/Orion are used in concert with commercial rockets and in-space assets developed under fixed price contracts. That seems to be where things are headed given statements from people like Gerst and Tim Hughes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Propylox on 07/16/2017 05:15 am
I've recently looked into the DSG plans and while I generally like space stations it seems to me that "co-manifesting" early modules with Orion throws away the single biggest advantage of a heavy lift rocket: the ability to launch large pieces of hardware. ...
... On the other hand co-manifesting these small modules with Orion gives the advantage of using Orion/astros to connect them to the DSG. Don't need a propulsion system for these modules if they are attached to Orion.
Pickle,
In complete agreement. Orion/SHLV should exclusively be a manned moon-rocket with consumables and supplies, not infrastructure. This simplifies schedule, reduces infrastructure cost to SEP transfer, utilizes commercial launchers and enables preferable LLOs for surface missions.
Endeavour,
With a 40mT TLI capability, small modules wouldn't need to be "connected". It'd be a single payload placed into an orbit to be refined either by its own propulsion or subsequent Orion missions.

Quote
Quote
This architecture seems to be falling the ISS/Shuttle trap of doing too much orbital assembly of small components. ...
Not if they keep it minimal. This architecture has only 5 or so assembly missions. ISS had much more than that.
Endeavour,
That "five or so" assemble missions could easily become a single cargo mission followed by a single manned, outfitting mission, bringing Initial Operating Capability to EM-4 ; EM-1&2 being testflights, EM-3 Cargo and EM-4 manned. Moreover, whatever pipe-dreams NASA pushes will undoubtedly be halved, so may as well redesign the DSG now.

EM-3 DSG --
The Power/Propulsion Module was supposed to have 12kW ion engines, powered by 40kW of solar. It actually only needs a Cygnus bus and BT-4 hypergolic thrusters, a lot more propellant and 3.5 to 8kW solar. The planned Airlock Module could reside in the Enhanced or "Super" Cygnus with a side hatch, the remaining volume housing the minimal/emergency ECLSS and elbow room for 42-day docked missions and unmanned thermal regulation.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/03-Walz_Cygnus_Beyond_Low-Earth_Orbit.pdf
The Logistic Module and unmentioned, but required Docking Node, is just work space and access. Again, a Cygnus-derived module of four or six, 4ft barrels with ports on both ends and a node in the middle with two radial ports accomplishes this. The Logistic Module's robotic arm mounts to the node. The arm would swing this module from its in-line launch configuration to a T-shape final position (a radial port attaching to the other Cygnus), allowing three exposed docking ports and plenty of volume.

The DSG is now ready for outfitting and operation after its single cargo launch, likely placed into a low capture orbit by the EUS as mass is well below 20mT even with plenty of supplies and add-ons.

At a later date and the fielding of an SEP tug; a Russian DOS (Habitation Module), the lunar landers and program, an external truss and arm for supplies and infrastructure, etc. can all join the party. But Orion needn't wait for those to begin missions and science on the DSG delivered by EM-3. That's a whole lot sooner, whole lot cheaper, much fewer rockets and just as capable - so obviously a bad idea?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/16/2017 09:10 am
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/16/2017 10:42 pm
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2017 10:46 pm
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 07/16/2017 11:38 pm
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given.  3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect?  If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion?  The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 07/17/2017 12:33 am
I can't see NASA paying for development of commercial crew or cargo vehicle to service DSG. If one is availiable they would most likely use it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2017 06:16 am
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/17/2017 06:22 am
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

Cargo can be transported from a LEO spacestation to the DSG using a SEP tug. Viable for non-perishable goods but too slow for people.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 07/17/2017 01:11 pm
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)

Catchy acronym does not equal leadership.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/17/2017 01:31 pm
Here is the problem with commercial using DSG for Lunar surface operations:

1-Using SLS/Orion to get there is way too expensive. Meaning Commercial cargo and Commerceal Crew to the DSG would be required at the normal significant reduction in costs/prices.
2-If CRS to DSG and CC to DSG occurs then the SLS and Orion become superfluous where the DSG is concerned.
3-Hopping for commercial Lunar ops using DSG is hopping to obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion.

But NASA already talked about using Commercial Cargo of some sort for supply in their DSG mission diagrams as a way of reducing costs, which kind of implies that 2 is not a given.  3 goes back to that in that why would that have that effect?  If a commercial company wants to dock an autonomous lander at the gateway, how does that obsolete and cancel SLS/Orion?  The whole point of this is to have a platform that has advantages for a variety of interests international and commercial and is doable within the flat budgets projected for the next decade.
For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/17/2017 01:34 pm
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)

Not the same thing.  This is only about development and IP sharing and not operations.

Also, the reason for it not being updated is that lunar landing is not priority (as stated many times before).   Just because NASA has a website or it is a little project doesn't mean NASA is going ahead with a concept.  See SEV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 07/17/2017 07:51 pm

For a commercial service based at the DSG they would need cheaper and often crew and cargo services than just using the expensive and limited mission rate of SLS/Orion. SLS may still have some payloads of 40mt BLEO but current commercial developments may overrun that as well. Remember regular missions by SLS using new RS25 engines will not start until NET 2026. Prior to that the max number of missions no matter what is limited to 4. 2 of those are the EC flights and the other 2 are EM-1 and EM-2. DSG deployment is something that will not happen until second half of 2020s. Meaning any commercial usage of the DSG would be ~3 years after it is deployed or almost 2030. A lot can happen in 13 years.

Cargo is pretty much already planned as per the presentation.  I'm not really considering this as a "humans to lunar surface" situation, at least not at first.  I imagine most of the activity would be things that are done and can be done without crew or during a normal rotation.  If the money or cooperating were to be available to do more, then you'd probably look at what more could be done then.  The mere existence of other ways to send things to DSG doesn't mean that the whole thing is doomed or certain-for-cancellation.   ::)

While we're adding random amounts of numbers to the dates, why not assume it starts in 2040?  Deployment is supposed to start on EM-2.  Wether that happens or not is up to others, but there are an awful lot of assumptions there, like any commercial usage needing an SLS flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 07/17/2017 11:50 pm
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

My $0.02


I do feel the need to address this.  Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.  There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.  And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there.  So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are.  But that has nothing to do with where we want to be.  If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.
If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 07/18/2017 09:31 am
Lastly, NASA is a tool that our government uses to solve peaceful problems that happen to be in space. So if we don't have a problem in space that we need solved, and Congress isn't willing to fund going beyond LEO with humans in the name of "science", then we should not be surprised that Congress won't fund a use for the SLS and Orion. With the advances in our private sector, this may be the natural point in history for us to shift our focus from government efforts in space to the private sector - which to me should be the ultimate goal anyways.

My $0.02


I do feel the need to address this.  Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.  There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.

So far, I agree, at least in a philosophical way.

Quote
And a desire to expand our footprint in space automatically expands our problems there.  So far, all of our problems are in LEO because that's where we are.  But that has nothing to do with where we want to be.  If we want to move into deeper space, then the lack of a deep space habitat is certainly a problem that needs to be solved.
If you don't have a problem there, it simply means you don't want to be there -- which is fine, but declaring the absence of a "need" is no more valid than to claim Columbus had no "need" to sail west.

But who is "we"?  Space cadets like you and I made up our minds a long time ago that there are plenty of "problems" in space need solutions, and we definitely want to be there.  But the US Congress...?  And it's Congress that matters when it comes deciding whether there are problems in space needing solutions.
In a philosophical sense, I agree with you.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 07/18/2017 01:36 pm
Scott Pace made a most concise argument for US leadership in space:

Quote
If we want to enhance stability by broadening international support for productive and stable norms of behavior in space, then we need to establish and lead space initiatives in which other nations can participate.

If we want to shape the values and norms of the new frontier, then we must ourselves be on that frontier. New societies are shaped by those who are there, not by those who stay home.
bold mine

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43259.msg1703064#msg1703064

The US has a significant National interest in the continued peaceful use of space, and IMO, the expansion beyond LEO.  Leadership there will help establish 'productive and stable norms of behavior' -- already a work in progress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/18/2017 03:18 pm
Debates over SLS vs commerical launchers aside, I think the questioning as to whether there are "problems" that need solving in space is an artificial one.

It's a political one. Everything with NASA is political, even when the end result is a science mission.

Quote
There are no problems in space unless we are actually doing things in space.

The problems to be addressed are here on Earth, even if the solutions are to do things in space. Apollo was a great example of that, where it was part of the Cold War here on Earth.

For every penny of taxpayer money that is spent by Congress the first question to be answered by our elected officials is always "how does this benefit me & our country?" And since the United States as a legal entity exists solely on Earth, the benefits for what we do in space have to be directed to Earth.

- Apollo was part of winning the Cold War (i.e. national security)
- The Shuttle program addressed what to do with the Apollo workforce (i.e. jobs)
- The ISS was only approved because it was to also address the end of the Cold War (i.e. jobs & national security)

Our nation does have a history of just funding "science", but so far HSF has needed more than "science" as it's justification.

Ignoring how the SLS was created, it's job is to be a transportation system, so it is dependent on what needs to be moved to & thru space. So a lack of "need" for doing things in space is going to result in a lack of "need" for the SLS - even more so since not everything NASA needs moved to space requires an HLV.

So when I talk about a lack of "need", it is a perceived lack of political "need" for Congress to spend money on payloads and programs that require a government-owned HLV.

I think how the SLS was created has lulled people into a false set of expectations, because the SLS was created so easily. But that was because it usurped the funding stream of a dying program, and did not have to go through the normal funding processes that normal proposals go through.

But the payloads and missions that require the SLS have to go through those processes, and I think the Europa Clipper mission is a good example of how long it takes to finally get funding for something that requires the SLS - and it's not even fully funded yet (https://www.space.com/36993-nasa-europa-mission-launch-date-2018-budget.html).

Then throw on top of that how long it takes to actually design, build and test HSF hardware (18 years for Orion) and you can see how the SLS is being threatened by not only a lack of things to launch, but also how infrequently it would launch.

So the problems to be solved are here on Earth. How they are solved is by doing things in space. Identifying the problems that need to be solved here on Earth are the first step (i.e. jobs, national security, "freedom", "science", etc.), then you have to find the sponsors in Congress that will ensure the funding is available. And again, except for the Europa Clipper, no one in Congress seems to be pushing for funding anything else for the SLS to do.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2017 04:01 pm
If NASA wants commercial lunar operations from the Deep Space Gateway without having to commit large sums of money, it could start an imitative called say the Moon Exploration Gateway Alliance (MEGA).

NASA can't make any commitments like that

Is that why the Lunar CATALYST web page has not been updated in 2 year?
https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst (https://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst)

Catchy acronym does not equal leadership.

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 07/18/2017 04:39 pm

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late.  A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/18/2017 09:28 pm

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late.  A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.

The launch vehicle has been procured. The Moon Express MX-1E lander is due to be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron.
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/07/12/moon-express-unveils-model-moon-ship/#more-62028 (http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/07/12/moon-express-unveils-model-moon-ship/#more-62028)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/18/2017 10:42 pm
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years.  And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/19/2017 12:34 am
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years.  And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.

Robotic exploration of the solar system rarely makes the headlines in the tabloids.

The USA is the only country to land a man on the Moon. However following the crash of the Shuttle the general public think NASA is a busted flush. It needs to return to the fray.

Congress probably expects the Orion and SLS to be involved in NASA's return to greatness.

The Japanese have caught up with the USA on lunar landers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Lunar_Exploration_Program (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Lunar_Exploration_Program)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steam Chaser on 07/19/2017 01:27 am

If Lunar CATALYST gets some of its hardware to the Moon within the next 2 years the USA would have caught up with Japan and China. I see that it is being added to/named in NASA's budget.

Study money and not enough to produce hardware. And anyways, even if there was hardware, it is too late.  A launch vehicle would have to been procured already.

I'm not sure, but I think A_M_Swallow is talking about the following from the recent House CJS Committee report associated with the 2018 Appropriations Bill (which still would have to go through multiple steps to become law):

Lunar   lander   demonstration.
—The   Committee   remains   supportive  of  NASA’s  ongoing  Lunar  Cargo  Transportation  and  Landing  by  Soft  Touchdown  (Lunar  CATALYST)  initiative  with  the  private  sector  to  develop  robotic  lunar  landers  that  can  be  integrated  with  U.S.  commercial  launch  capabilities  to  deliver  payloads  to  the 
lunar  surface  and  provides  up  to  $30,000,000  for  these  activities.  NASA  shall  provide  a  report  within  120  days  of  enactment  of  this Act regarding the current status of this program.

Was Lunar CATALYST handled on a no-exchange-of-funds basis previously?  Would the "up to $30,000,000" just pay for NASA employee involvement in Lunar CATALYST and similar NASA expenses, or would some of it go to the commercial partners?

Anyway, Lunar CATALYST is only loosely related to SLS (based on the above phrase "integrated with U.S. commercial launch capabilities"), so it's probably off-topic.  I'm surprised the part of Congress backing SLS hasn't pushed for something more like an SLS-launched variant of MoonRise or similar Lunar South Pole Aitken mission, since that sort of mission is already considered one of those worthy of the next $1B New Frontiers competition.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 07/19/2017 01:33 am
I dunno.  There was a fair bit of interest when we orbited Ceres and flew by Pluto.  Juno is also grabbing some views.

But maybe it is just me.  But I fear we are off topic insofar as SLS goes, so I will shut up now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/19/2017 02:00 am
No one has caught up with us, even though we haven't been to the moon in 50 years.  And no one does else does what we have done with Robotic exploration of the solar system.

Robotic exploration of the solar system rarely makes the headlines in the tabloids.

The great red spot of Jupiter as never seen before – in pictures (https://www.theguardian.com/science/gallery/2017/jul/13/the-great-red-spot-of-jupiter-as-never-seen-before-in-pictures) | Science | The Guardian

The Juno pictures were all over the place 6 days ago, and don't you remember the excitement with the New Horizons flyby of Pluto? Just about every publication I frequent usually has NASA robotic mission updates.

Quote
The USA is the only country to land a man on the Moon. However following the crash of the Shuttle the general public think NASA is a busted flush. It needs to return to the fray.

The public doesn't have that long of a memory to remember the Columbia in 2003. During that time we've had a lot of activity on the ISS, as well as robotic missions to Mars and other planets, and the last Shuttle memories would have been a successful mission to the ISS.

Quote
Congress probably expects the Orion and SLS to be involved in NASA's return to greatness.

The term "return to greatness" is charged statement, since there are many (including myself) who think America and NASA as never fallen from "greatness'. Despite the pronouncements of our current President.

Plus, giant rockets don't make a country "great", since they are only the transportation for a mission, not the mission themselves. And so far Trump has not announced any missions for the Orion or SLS.

Quote
The Japanese have caught up with the USA on lunar landers.

Russia was always the leader on robotic landers for our Moon, but we are the clear leader for robotic landers for Mars. Guess which one is harder...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 07/22/2017 04:58 am
Is there a chart or a graph somewhere that shows how much funding the SLS was allocated vs. how much was requested?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2017 05:26 pm
From the update thread:

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html

Goodbye swooshes.


:( I liked them.

"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."

But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 08/03/2017 05:58 pm
From the update thread:

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html

Goodbye swooshes.


:( I liked them.

"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."

But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.

That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2017 06:03 pm
From the update thread:

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html

Goodbye swooshes.


:( I liked them.

"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."

But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.

That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.

Whoa, hold on there. How about you provide some actual evidence to prove me wrong instead of claiming 'hyperbole'. Am I wrong that no US launch vehicle since Saturn V has used "photogrammetric checkerboards"? (I certainly could be...) Then just provide evidence.

As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 08/03/2017 07:14 pm
From the update thread:

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html

Goodbye swooshes.


:( I liked them.

"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."

But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.

That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.

Whoa, hold on there. How about you provide some actual evidence to prove me wrong instead of claiming 'hyperbole'. Am I wrong that no US launch vehicle since Saturn V has used "photogrammetric checkerboards"? (I certainly could be...) Then just provide evidence.

As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?
STS flew with photometric checkerboards on the SRB's on the first several missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2017 07:17 pm
As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?
STS flew with photometric checkerboards on the SRB's on the first several missions.

I stand corrected... I had not noticed them until now. Two small squares per booster, that seems to have been it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/03/2017 07:26 pm
From the update thread:

Space Launch System Solid Rocket Boosters ‘on Target’ for First Flight

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/space-launch-system-solid-rocket-boosters-on-target-for-first-flight.html

Goodbye swooshes.


:( I liked them.

"In the final design, the photogrammetric checkerboards will replace the orange and gray stripes that had been previously considered."

But no recent launch vehicle has used those kinds of "photogrammetric checkerboards" on their first flights. Other data has sufficed. Wasn't the last new US launch vehicle to use this pattern... Saturn V? This seems like yet another Saturn era design element rather than a requirement.

That is pure hyperbole on your part, you have no idea if its useful or not yet you've already determined your conclusion.

Whoa, hold on there. How about you provide some actual evidence to prove me wrong instead of claiming 'hyperbole'. Am I wrong that no US launch vehicle since Saturn V has used "photogrammetric checkerboards"? (I certainly could be...) Then just provide evidence.

As far as them just being design elements... Were they needed or used on SRBs for the first Shuttle flight? No. Is that hyperbole too?

The SRBs on STS-1 had black markings on the sides for photogrammetry. These markings were used through STS-51-C, the 15th flight of the Shuttle.

Later flights had stripes on the SRB's nose cones, starting with STS-41-D, the 12th Shuttle flight, and these remained in use until STS-58 in 1993.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 08/03/2017 10:13 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2017 10:43 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/03/2017 10:54 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

Less complex booster separation events?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 08/03/2017 11:23 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

A good argument against reuse.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/03/2017 11:37 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

A good argument against reuse.

What do you mean? I'm trying to parse what you wrote, but I'm not seeing it...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 08/04/2017 01:09 am
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

The Shuttle SRBs did not have all these visual points, whereas the Saturn V had its black roll patterns.  Unless the geometry of the shuttle meant they didn't need the roll patterns, I fail to see why they are needed on SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: calapine on 08/04/2017 07:55 am
Semi serious:

If NASA wants to go with the times they should come up a checkerboard pattern that doubles as QR code... ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/04/2017 04:07 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

The Shuttle SRBs did not have all these visual points, whereas the Saturn V had its black roll patterns.  Unless the geometry of the shuttle meant they didn't need the roll patterns, I fail to see why they are needed on SLS.

one possible use would be to help provide a dataset for further research, something private companies tend to not be interested in.  So, are they needed?  probably not.  Could they provide a basis for research/investigation at some later point or for some department not directly involved with the operation of the vehicle?  maybe
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 08/04/2017 04:21 pm
For what its worth, using the checkerboards means that doing digital photogrammetry after launch will allow them to get a very accurate 3D image of the location, motion and orientation of things like booster separation.  The way its often done, at least in VFX is to have as many trackable points as possible to help cancel errors.  Combined with the onboard video, they should be able to do some pretty good analysis of what is happening.

Oh I understand very well how it works, and that some useful data could be there. But the point remains... why do other domestic launch providers not see the value of it?

The Shuttle SRBs did not have all these visual points, whereas the Saturn V had its black roll patterns.  Unless the geometry of the shuttle meant they didn't need the roll patterns, I fail to see why they are needed on SLS.

The Shuttle SRBs did have photogrammetric markings.

See post: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1709683#msg1709683
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 08/04/2017 05:23 pm
True, but it is practically naked when compared to the SLS or Saturn V.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: okan170 on 08/04/2017 06:26 pm
one possible use would be to help provide a dataset for further research, something private companies tend to not be interested in.  So, are they needed?  probably not.  Could they provide a basis for research/investigation at some later point or for some department not directly involved with the operation of the vehicle?  maybe

The article mentions that they want to use the data to validate their models that they've been using for SRB separation and other events.  It also may be that these checkerboards provide better more accurate targets for modern techniques than the larger black and white patterns.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: OV135 on 08/04/2017 11:43 pm
Regarding the heater strips that go on the SRBs. How would these look on the 5 segment SRB? I'm kind of stuck seeing how this would look. Is there a diagram?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2017 01:10 am
Regarding the heater strips that go on the SRBs. How would these look on the 5 segment SRB? I'm kind of stuck seeing how this would look. Is there a diagram?

The same as four with an additional segment.  The heater strips are just on the field joints
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: OV135 on 08/05/2017 03:36 pm
I see. Though which segment will be the added fifth? This helps to show which of the field joint heaters to duplicate.  They vary per segment.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 08/05/2017 03:37 pm
New center
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 08/07/2017 08:51 pm
If needed, the swoosh patterns could also be used for tracking rotation and alignment.  There's no law that says the patterns have to be rectilinear.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 08/09/2017 08:21 pm
If needed, the swoosh patterns could also be used for tracking rotation and alignment.  There's no law that says the patterns have to be rectilinear.

You're not going to get good data that way.  Not enough detail to pin down specific points.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/24/2017 12:33 pm
I remember being shouted at on another site for claiming that NASA wanted the old Saturn-V-style markings on the core for photographic tracking purposes. The sense of vindication is... somewhat bizarre to experience.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 08/24/2017 04:07 pm
If needed, the swoosh patterns could also be used for tracking rotation and alignment.  There's no law that says the patterns have to be rectilinear.

You're not going to get good data that way.  Not enough detail to pin down specific points.

Thing is the swooshes could still stay if they built in the checkers as part of the design, for example this photo I found on google (Ironically it is named "checkered swoosh Rocket Pop").

The change to remove the swooshes annoys me considerably.  I live in the engineering world, but am very aware of the importance of aesthetics, particularly for publicly funded programs.  In the case of the swooshes there is no reason why they cannot remain in a modified form, it just takes a slight merging of engineering and artistic vision.

EDIT: With the updated animation out today, UGH the checkers look even worse than I could have thought.  Attached is my MS Paint drawn checkered stripe image of SLS, done with an appalling poor level of quality and low levels of effort (as evident by the complete lack of symmetry). 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: OV135 on 08/31/2017 09:23 pm
I've noticed none of the SLS diagrams and art show both sides of the stack.In some I see the large system tunnel on the core stage, but see it in none of the illustrations of the side of SLS facing it's LUT. I only see the other side via other diagrams or the 1/10 scale models.

By the way, what color is the system tunnel? Is it the same lighter color as the intertank and close out areas or is it the same color as the acreage foam spray, which is darker? I'm building a 1/72 scale model of this and the side in question has no reference to look for. I've tried and all diagrams show only the side facing away from the LUT.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 08/31/2017 09:50 pm
From the UPDATE thread:

Dynetics has announced the completion of the SLS core stage pathfinder vehicle.

http://www.dynetics.com/news/497

If they completed it, why don't they share a photo of it, instead of this rendering? (click on the update post to see the rendering)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 09/02/2017 01:09 pm
From the UPDATE thread:

Dynetics has announced the completion of the SLS core stage pathfinder vehicle.

http://www.dynetics.com/news/497

If they completed it, why don't they share a photo of it, instead of this rendering? (click on the update post to see the rendering)

Yeah, that struck me as a bit odd as well. Here's some pictures from the media and NASA.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: OV135 on 09/02/2017 10:34 pm
Will it be painted to look like the flight article?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 09/03/2017 02:26 pm
Will it be painted to look like the flight article?
No. What you see is the finished product: Painted grey. It's sole purpose is being a dimensional- and mass simulator of the core stage. Flight-article "looks" are not required.


Edit: spelling
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 09/06/2017 04:55 am
Great article, but lacking proper metric units. Don't want to alienate the rest of the world!
Isn't SLS being built using Imperial units?  If so, the most precise numbers will be in those units.

 - Ed Kyle
US Imperial Units is primary measurement and Metric is listed as secondary per Space Launch System (SLS) Mission Planner's Guide - ESD 30000 Baseline. PSM most charts are hybrid.

Sorry about being pedantic, but the US doesn't used Imperial units. We use US Customary units. They are mostly the same, but with some important differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems

I wished we used the metric system, it's a lot simpler when you get used to it.
document says US Imperial Units so that is what we are going to just roll with the flow. Discussion thread here: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.0

That's sad. It doesn't say US Imperial units (the word Imperial doesn't appear in the document), but it does say English units. Even our engineers don't understand what units we use. Doesn't matter with length, but a US gallon (fluid or dry) is smaller than an Imperial gallon and let's not forget the confusion about tons. More reasons for at least the government to go metric.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 09/06/2017 07:31 am
Oh of course the 'native' units (not wanting to get into name discussion) should be first, just think metric conversions should be mentioned too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 09/06/2017 03:57 pm
Oh of course the 'native' units (not wanting to get into name discussion) should be first, just think metric conversions should be mentioned too.

Is it common practice for European sites to convert to Imperial units?  Just curious.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Welsh Dragon on 09/06/2017 04:52 pm
Getting very off topic here, but no, not at all (barring the UK of course, which is a special case). Which is understandable, given that they write in the majority system, so to speak.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 10/25/2017 08:04 pm
Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Honeycutt: SLS will be the backbone for US space plans for 30 years or more. #VonBraun

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923203278485229569

Quote
Jeff Foust
@jeff_foust
Mike Griffin: don’t expect to see changes on the scale of 2010 (when Constellation cancelled.) SLS and Orion aren’t going away. #VonBraun

https://mobile.twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/923214927187382273
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 10/26/2017 04:38 pm
Decision on EM-1 launch date still pending

Quote
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — NASA is still up to a month away from setting a new target launch date for the first flight of the Space Launch System, but agency officials said they still expected it to take place in 2019.

NASA has not set a new date for Exploration Mission (EM) 1, which will launch an uncrewed Orion spacecraft on a test flight into lunar orbit and back, since announcing in May that it would delay the flight to 2019 after deciding not to put a crew on the mission.

http://spacenews.com/decision-on-em-1-launch-date-still-pending/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacetraveler on 11/09/2017 03:06 am
Let's face it, there's pretty much a zero percent chance that it doesn't slip into 2020.

The most optimistic scenarios are continually projected publicly because SLS needs all the political support it can get if it's going to survive.

I'd bank on a Q3 or later launch in 2020 at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/09/2017 03:10 pm
Cross post from the SC thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44132.msg1745841#msg1745841 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44132.msg1745841#msg1745841)
Probable realistic launch plan schedule for SLS:

EM-1   May 2020
SM-1   July 2023
EM-2   June 2024
EM-3   June 2025
SM-2   2026 (whenever the launch window in this year occurs) (plus this is the first flight of the RS-25Es, ASAP will want a unmanned flight of these engines first before a manned one) (this engine set will not be available to support a flight until this time anyway so it could not be done any earlier)
EM-4   2028 (it takes 2 years to deliver 4 RS-25Es on the current contract) (It will require a bigger budget and a new contract to  increase the build rate to deliver 4 engines per year instead of the current contract delivery rate of 2 engines per year)
Unless the engine build rate is increased there is no more launches in the 2020's.

Assumptions:
a) That ML-1 is modified to be a cargo only SLS-1B support.
b) That an ML-2 is constructed with lessons learned to make a crew version of the ML with a budget funded at a level allowing it to be constructed in 5 years starting Oct 2018. This gets a ML available to support the June 2024 EM-2 date at better than 6 months prior to launch date plus a few months of margin.
c) That EC is ready for launch by 6 months prior to its launch date in July 2023.
d) That Europa Lander is ready for launch 6 months prior to its window in 2026.

This schedule does not look quite so speculative anymore.

A 1 month slip of the best case Dec 2019 launch date and EC would not make it's June 2022 window. But for EM-2 going first NASA may want a lighter weight ML and then there is the problem of not enough time to construct a ML-2 for support of manned EM-2 plus EM-2 would be the first flight of EUS as well. But an ML-2 must be budgeted. It is not in the 2018 budget. It needs an RFI (to get the detailed cost of a second ML and how long it would take to construct it). Then funds and a contract. Do not expect a start work (detailed design) prior to Oct 2018. Add a probable 4 years which may be too short since the build rate is highly dependent on yearly budget and Congress is stingy. That give a probable EM-2 date of NET Sept 2022. Fortunately this is low likelihood of slip readiness date for the ML-2 since the contractor so far building the pad infrastructure when they gave a readiness date they have met it. It has only been that NASA has been adding additional requirements and changes due to flight hardware changes that the schedule for the pad systems has slipped out.

It is likely to take 33 months after ML-1 to be made ready and support EM-2 stacking. An effort that would likely start 6 months prior and need a completed ML for use but I believe the the 33 months includes that consideration. This gives an earliest EM-2 date of if ML-1 is used of Sept 2022 (NASA gave June 2022) as well if EM-1 actually launches Dec 2019. But for each month EM-1 slips so does this EM-2 date when using the ML-1. A worst case date of June for EM-1 is a worst case earliest launch date when using ML-1 (funds for an ML-2 does not get appropriated) of Mar 2023. In this case it would be better to launch EC (SM-1) than EM-2 since it's second window is Jul 2023.

It is possible for NASA (and its contractors currently contracted and the way that the contracts are written) to do two SLS launches separated by 6 months. So if EM-1 is earlier than April 2020 then an EM-2 can be done in Jan 2023 with an SM-1 in Jul 2023, a 4 month slip of the EM-1 NET date of Dec 2019.

Now a second problem consideration. NASA is running the SLS, Orion  and related projects at a 1% budget margin. Such that if anything happens the schedule slips out since there is no funds to absorb problems and maintain schedule. This condition exist not just for the current FY 2018 but for out year FY. NASA plans do not have any budget reserves available in their NET EM-1 Dec 2019 planning date. So that means in order to meet the Dec 2019 there has to be no weather events, no production errors, no handling mishaps, no engineering errors requiring rework, etc. In 2017 theses events caused a 6 month schedule delay in the core stage (it was already 6 months behind this just made it impossible to ignore the core stage schedule pushing the launch date out a year). There are 2 more years to get to Dec 2019. Hopefully 2018 and 2019 will not be as challenging as 2017 has been.

NOTE: ML stands for Mobile Launcher platform.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 11/09/2017 03:53 pm
Let's face it, there's pretty much a zero percent chance that it doesn't slip into 2020.

The most optimistic scenarios are continually projected publicly because SLS needs all the political support it can get if it's going to survive.

I'd bank on a Q3 or later launch in 2020 at this point.

Not per the latest article.  June 2020 is worst case scenario.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/sls-managers-troops-slip-2020/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 11/09/2017 04:26 pm
June 2020 is worst case scenario.

Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed.  It's not worst case.

Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up. 

If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.

Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.

This leaves management with only three options:  remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/09/2017 05:24 pm
June 2020 is worst case scenario.

Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed.  It's not worst case.

Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up. 

If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.

Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.

This leaves management with only three options:  remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.

You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB, the mobile launcher and the pad next week Chelyabinsk style. In those cases, scheduling or setting dates based on that stuff is simply a pointless exercise which is why it doesn't factor into schedule timelines. Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/09/2017 05:52 pm
June 2020 is worst case scenario.

Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed.  It's not worst case.

Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up. 

If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.

Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.

This leaves management with only three options:  remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.

You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB, the mobile launcher and the pad next week Chelyabinsk style. In those cases, scheduling or setting dates based on that stuff is simply a pointless exercise which is why it doesn't factor into schedule timelines. Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 11/09/2017 07:36 pm
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB,

That's a ridiculous example.

When developing new systems, there are always unknowns, like the welding issues in this project.  Gerst made reference to unknowns in his testimony today.

Well-managed developments incorporate schedule, budget, and technical margin to accommodate them.

Quote
Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.

It's this kind of extreme optimism that gets NASA into trouble in the first place.

According to Gerst, the launch date of June (not May) 2020 is only "possible".  Not likely or probable.  Just possible.

December 2019 works only if NASA perfectly manages every known risk.  The agency won't.

The difference between the two is not margin.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacetraveler on 11/09/2017 08:04 pm
Let's face it, there's pretty much a zero percent chance that it doesn't slip into 2020.

The most optimistic scenarios are continually projected publicly because SLS needs all the political support it can get if it's going to survive.

I'd bank on a Q3 or later launch in 2020 at this point.

Not per the latest article.  June 2020 is worst case scenario.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/11/sls-managers-troops-slip-2020/

Not possible to know worst case date at this point.

Keep in mind we are only 6 months out from the decision to announce the slip from 2018 into 2019.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/

As we get closer to 2020, I suspect the discussion will have changed to one around whether a slip into 2021 can be avoided.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/09/2017 08:39 pm
A point of perspective. As you get closer to the actual launch the higher the schedule risk.

Why? Because there is a tremendous number of unknowns in a first time launch with first time flight hardware and most of the GSE also first time. Simple things like wiring errors on connectors, umbilicals that are too long or not long enough, bolts / holes not matching up, software problems, and other additional integration and checkout, handling difficulties. NASA currently has a period of 6 months of schedule duration to handle all of this expecting that some tasks will take significantly longer than expected. That last portion of stacking, integrating, checkouts, and fueling will encounter problems. NASA believes that they have scheduled enough time for this difficult period.

Software/hardware interface problems with the first time checkouts of an integrated stack and pad GSE may be the largest problems encountered and the most difficult to overcome.

An current example is the FH with a possible launch date of best case of a launch at 1.5 months away could still slip easily as much as an additional month. So even if the SLS flight hardware and ground GSE meets the milestone delivery to the VAB for a Dec 2019 launch date the remaining tasks may not make the Dec date even then. In fact there is only a 50% likelihood for the process to be completed in just 6 months because the the 6 month period is the nominal expected (not the best nor the worst cases but the median case).

So if the Dec 2019 is the 3 sigma best case and June 2020 is the 3 sigma worst case then the 50% median likelihood date would be ~Mar 2020.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 11/09/2017 08:55 pm
You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB,
It's this kind of extreme optimism that gets NASA into trouble in the first place.

According to Gerst, the launch date of June (not May) 2020 is only "possible".  Not likely or probable.  Just possible.

December 2019 works only if NASA perfectly manages every known risk.  The agency won't.

The difference between the two is not margin.

Not according to the article.

Quote
“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/09/2017 09:12 pm
June 2020 is worst case scenario.

Per Chris on the development thread, June 2020 is what's "realistically possible" when the known schedule risks are analyzed.  It's not worst case.

Worst case in any development is always more unknown risks popping up. 

If June 2020 provides little or no margin for unknown risks, it is not the worst case.

Also per this week's OIG report, SLS is also in the unfortunate position of having no budget margin to deal with unknowns.

This leaves management with only three options:  remove content (for which there are limited options on a launch vehicle), increase risk (reduce testing), or slip schedule.

You can't take into account unknown unknowns. A meteor could take out the VAB, the mobile launcher and the pad next week Chelyabinsk style. In those cases, scheduling or setting dates based on that stuff is simply a pointless exercise which is why it doesn't factor into schedule timelines. Right now, it seems to be NET December 2019. May 2020 has like 5 months of schedule margin on the NET date.
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems.

If things go "perfectly" from now on, the LV would have had major problems in its development. They would just be prior to November 9th, 2017. I mean, you are basically assuming any date set ever will be delayed. In which case, you could never reach a launch date with an actual launch. Each date would have to be delayed prior to arriving on that date.

I could equally assume that the Falcon Heavy will be delayed because it has been "this year" for the last several years. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Eventually, it will launch on time though.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 11/09/2017 09:32 pm
Not according to the article.

Quote
“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”

Lightfoot is talking about "mitigation strategies", ways to buy down risk and buy back lost schedule.

Lightfoot does not mention schedule margin, time added to a confident date to deal with risks as they emerge.

They're not the same thing.  If you're managing a development project, it's unwise to conflate the two.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: copper8 on 11/10/2017 02:54 pm
Apparently Lamar Smith (R-TX) who chairs the House Science committee, made a number of comments yesterday expressing 'disappointment' and 'frustration' at the latest schedule and warning that additional delays could build support for unspecified alternatives.  I've been under the impression that this committee has been an SLS booster up to this point.  Frustrated congressmen who hold the purse strings would not seem like a good sign.  Is this a change in the signals that Congress is sending regarding SLS funding?

   
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/10/2017 03:21 pm
If things go "perfectly" from now on, the LV would have had major problems in its development. They would just be prior to November 9th, 2017. I mean, you are basically assuming any date set ever will be delayed. In which case, you could never reach a launch date with an actual launch. Each date would have to be delayed prior to arriving on that date.

We're dealing with the physical world here, not the meta-physical world. The delays are based on real issues that have to be solved, so as they get solved there is less potential for schedule slippages.

The reason for the schedule slippages is that the SLS and Orion were not fully defined when Congress mandated NASA build them - and Congress defined the SLS and it's initial operational date of 12/31/2016, which obviously was not based on reality.

That makes it impossible for anyone to define valid schedules when there are so many variables and unknowns, so what happens is that everyone starts using "best case" estimates in order to appease the politicians, and also because they know that those in Congress who wanted the SLS and Orion were likely to keep supporting the programs. Boeing and Lockheed Martin know there are no downsides to the schedule slippages, because they will still get paid, and NASA is stuck looking like they don't know what they are doing. Which in a way they don't, because NASA has never been fully in control of the SLS and Orion programs.

Given enough time and funding the SLS and Orion will fly, and likely fly safely. The question is whether there is enough time and money...

Quote
I could equally assume that the Falcon Heavy will be delayed because it has been "this year" for the last several years. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Eventually, it will launch on time though.

Apples vs oranges, since the Falcon Heavy has not been a priority for SpaceX - Falcon 9 and Dragon Cargo & Crew have been the bigger priorities. The SLS and Orion are priorities for NASA according to Congress, although their schedule slippages have not impacted any customers... because, you know, there pretty much aren't any...   ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 11/10/2017 04:00 pm
Not according to the article.

Quote
“While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019,” said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. “Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date.”

Lightfoot is talking about "mitigation strategies", ways to buy down risk and buy back lost schedule.

Lightfoot does not mention schedule margin, time added to a confident date to deal with risks as they emerge.

They're not the same thing.  If you're managing a development project, it's unwise to conflate the two.

OIG(?) reports that SLS/Orion funding margin is less than 1%.  'Buying down' the risk that is already identified, let alone emergent risk, takes dollars -- don't think 1% is much help.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 11/10/2017 04:24 pm
...
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.

Dec 2019 (8yrs total) is a 33% slip in a six-year program (assuming that you completely write off the real start of this program in 2006); Summer 2020 is a 50% slip.  When SLS flies could be well beyond these dates... vastly more likely than Dec 2019; nonetheless, we'll spend the next two years talking about SLS launching in 2019.  Mission accomplished Mr. Lightfoot.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: dwheeler on 11/10/2017 07:16 pm
Apparently Lamar Smith (R-TX) who chairs the House Science committee, made a number of comments yesterday expressing 'disappointment' and 'frustration' at the latest schedule and warning that additional delays could build support for unspecified alternatives.  I've been under the impression that this committee has been an SLS booster up to this point.  Frustrated congressmen who hold the purse strings would not seem like a good sign.  Is this a change in the signals that Congress is sending regarding SLS funding?
   

From https://www.space.com/38746-smith-disappointed-with-lack-of-progress-on-sls-and-orion.html (https://www.space.com/38746-smith-disappointed-with-lack-of-progress-on-sls-and-orion.html)

Quote
...
Smith, who announced Nov. 2 he would not run for reelection next year ...
...
Smith'`s comments represent one of the strongest rebukes to date by a leading member of Congress regarding progress on SLS and Orion. Other members of the committee expressed few, if any, reservations about the programs at the hearing despite the latest delay.
...

I seems like there's been a lot of this lately... announce you're going to retire from public office and only then say what you're really feeling.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/10/2017 07:33 pm
Agree that the chickens are coming home to roost even more. All of the "Senate Launch System" contrivances to have a govt LV strategy their way, have led to time/cost stumbles. While fewer stumbles elsewhere may have changed the game.

The "knock on" effect. More gradual erosion. (We can now compare BO, SX, Ariane Group, ULA, NG/OA versions of "gradatim", FWIW.)

Pick you poison? Is there a way to just avoid the poison and build/fly?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 11/10/2017 08:34 pm
Competition.

Put heavy lift out to bid...  400tonnes/year to pick-an-orbit, X crew members per year to destination specified...
then compare the numbers to the cash currently being spent for much, much less.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/10/2017 11:30 pm
...
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.

Dec 2019 (8yrs total) is a 33% slip in a six-year program (assuming that you completely write off the real start of this program in 2006); Summer 2020 is a 50% slip.  When SLS flies could be well beyond these dates... vastly more likely than Dec 2019; nonetheless, we'll spend the next two years talking about SLS launching in 2019.  Mission accomplished Mr. Lightfoot.

Careful. All constellation ended up being was trying to build a crew vehicle to replace ISS crew rotation flights. That could just as easily be lumped in with commercial crew and here we are...11 years later and still waiting.

And the lack of progress since 2006 could also be an argument for why we shouldn't do the same thing all over again that was done in 2010(reset everything for some other shiny bauble).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/11/2017 12:21 am
...
The NET Dec 2019 date is if everything goes perfectly. When was the last time any development of a LV went perfect no problems. Even SpaceX had lots of problems and slipped dates especially for their SHLV the FH about 2+ years of slip now. The original planning date for SLS was Oct 2017 BTW when the program was started. Just a 2+ year slip over a development that will be 8+ years in duration is not actually that bad compared to other similar complex large space projects.

Dec 2019 (8yrs total) is a 33% slip in a six-year program (assuming that you completely write off the real start of this program in 2006); Summer 2020 is a 50% slip.  When SLS flies could be well beyond these dates... vastly more likely than Dec 2019; nonetheless, we'll spend the next two years talking about SLS launching in 2019.  Mission accomplished Mr. Lightfoot.

Careful. All constellation ended up being was trying to build a crew vehicle to replace ISS crew rotation flights. That could just as easily be lumped in with commercial crew and here we are...11 years later and still waiting.

And the lack of progress since 2006 could also be an argument for why we shouldn't do the same thing all over again that was done in 2010(reset everything for some other shiny bauble).
As I was trying to point out and will try to clear up is that the SLS/Orion program is fairly normal for such complex  LV development programs. The number one driver for the slips is not the fact that there are problems but that there is no funds reserves to deal with them. From experience the costs of the solving and handling of problems is about 20-30% of the funds needed for all the tasks if no problems were ever encountered. But this is where the fact that SLS/Orion program has gotten itself into trouble. They have moved the cost margins down to almost nothing to be able to then have sooner end date. But if problems occur that need that 20-30% of extra funds the result is a 20-30% or even more schedule growth.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 11/11/2017 01:24 pm
As I was trying to point out and will try to clear up is that the SLS/Orion program is fairly normal for such complex  LV development programs.

I think we have to introduce a caveat to that statement: normal for such complex government LV development programs. (Remember when choosing the RS25 Shuttle-era engines was supposed to shorten development time and cut costs?) Development of the Orion capsule (beginning during the Constellation era, recall) has taken an absurdly long time and at huge expense, and will result in a capsule that is overkill for orbital missions and inadequate for deep-space missions.

I lose patience with the argument that this sort of engineering is somehow so dramatically cutting-edge that we have no development baseline. That's ridiculous. Apollo is now fifty years in the past (sigh); rocketry, while complex, is certainly not terra incognita in an engineering sense. We have more than half a century of experience in designing, building, and launching LVs and payloads. There's no excuse for the protracted development problems we're seeing in the SLS/Orion stack.

As to the argument that NASA is starved of funds, I don't buy that either. NASA gets a budget in excess of eighteen billion dollars per year. Granted that money can't be shifted willy-nilly among projects, but still: that's nearly $180 billion over the past decade. SLS alone gets about $2 billion a year. (Never mind the huge amount expended on Orion.) NASA's problem is not a lack of funding -- it's a sclerotic, dysfunctional bureaucracy; a defective and risk-averse engineering culture; and a broken procurement system.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 11/11/2017 02:24 pm
Competition.

Put heavy lift out to bid...  400tonnes/year to pick-an-orbit, X crew members per year to destination specified...
then compare the numbers to the cash currently being spent for much, much less.

To some extent the SLS project has been obsoleted by events (OBE). When SLS was greenlit, neither SpaceX nor Blue Origin were nearly as far along in their plans. New Glenn and BFR weren't even concepts at the time -- even Falcon Heavy was still years away. But the rapid advance of private-sector LV capability combined with protracted development delays with SLS has rendered the original rationale for SLS development very shaky. To the extent that SLS/Orion was a jobs program to retain a trained base of aerospace workers and NASA employees until the economy improved, that goal is largely been achieved (though at obnoxious cost in both dollars and loss of political capital).

NASA will launch EM-1 just to have something to show for all the years and billions spent on the projects, but if BFR and/or New Glenn come online before the mid-2020's, I think the SLS will be canceled. (It may be canceled sooner if there's another major development delay or a RUD during testing.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 11/11/2017 02:41 pm
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development.  Falcon 9 is late.  Crewed Dragon is Late.  DreamChaser is late.  The Boeing Capsule is late.  New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020.  Vulcan?  The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.

It's still hard.  Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/11/2017 05:45 pm
Careful. All constellation ended up being was trying to build a crew vehicle to replace ISS crew rotation flights.

ISS crew rotation was only meant to be a short-term task (Constellation funding required the ISS to end in 2016), and Orion's main task was always to go to the Moon.

Quote
That could just as easily be lumped in with commercial crew and here we are...11 years later and still waiting.

You're obviously alluding to Orion when you talk about 11 years, since the Commercial Crew program started in 2010 with a $50M contract award to five companies, and the actual contract award for crew transportation services (CCtCap) was not awarded until 2014.

Quote
And the lack of progress since 2006 could also be an argument for why we shouldn't do the same thing all over again that was done in 2010(reset everything for some other shiny bauble).

Not that Congress agreed with everything Obama laid out for them in 2010 about the Constellation program, but Congress chose to keep the ISS instead of cutting it's mission short (thus requiring Commercial Cargo & Crew), and decided to scale back the transportation part of Constellation - which is now the SLS and Orion MPCV.

So the lesson from the Constellation program is that Congress will change it's mind when presented with what it considers to be a better alternative. But the better alternatives can also include not spending money on something anymore.

As to the SLS and Orion, they will stick around as long as there is a U.S. Government need for them. But once it is perceived that there is not enough "demand" for a government-owned HLV transportation system and a Earth-local 4-person 21-day spacecraft, then Congress won't have any problem ending them. Which is why I say SLS and Orion supporters should focus their efforts on getting things funded that must use the SLS and Orion... just sayin'   ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 11/11/2017 06:06 pm
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development.  Falcon 9 is late.  Crewed Dragon is Late.  DreamChaser is late.  The Boeing Capsule is late.  New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020.  Vulcan?  The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.

It's still hard.  Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.

Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/11/2017 08:22 pm
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development.  Falcon 9 is late.  Crewed Dragon is Late.  DreamChaser is late.  The Boeing Capsule is late.  New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020.  Vulcan?  The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.

It's still hard.  Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.

Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.

Orders of magnitude? So, 100:1. A 3 mT supply run to LEO ordered from the the private sector costs between 130 million and 225 million. It would cost the government between 13 billion and 22.5 billion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 11/11/2017 08:45 pm
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development.  Falcon 9 is late.  Crewed Dragon is Late.  DreamChaser is late.  The Boeing Capsule is late.  New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020.  Vulcan?  The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.

It's still hard.  Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.

Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.

Orders of magnitude? So, 100:1. A 3 mT supply run to LEO ordered from the the private sector costs between 130 million and 225 million. It would cost the government between 13 billion and 22.5 billion.

That "orders" shoud be "order", typo on my part. You can look at NAFCOM estimates for Falcon 9 and Spacehab logistics module for examples.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 11/11/2017 09:01 pm
Let the record show that the New Space companies, some with federal tax dollars, are continually behind in their development.  Falcon 9 is late.  Crewed Dragon is Late.  DreamChaser is late.  The Boeing Capsule is late.  New Glenn thinks they are on track for 2020.  Vulcan?  The Virgin suborbital spaceplane is late.

It's still hard.  Everything takes longer and is more expensive than you think it will be.

Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.

Orders of magnitude? So, 100:1. A 3 mT supply run to LEO ordered from the the private sector costs between 130 million and 225 million. It would cost the government between 13 billion and 22.5 billion.

That "orders" shoud be "order", typo on my part. You can look at NAFCOM estimates for Falcon 9 and Spacehab logistics module for examples.

Falcon 9 was developed when real estate was dirt cheap and they were competing with Starbucks for college educated labor. I don't think the accounting took into account the current value of the stock options paid. It was a unique situation.

 Shuttle cost somewhere like an order of magnitude more per flight than commercial logistics flights using Falcon/Dragon or Antares/Cygnus. The capabilities weren't remotely similar however. I can break out the unpressurized volume/pressurized volume/upmass/downmass/passenger count if you would like, but it is a pointless exercise.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 11/11/2017 09:19 pm
Falcon 9 was developed when real estate was dirt cheap and they were competing with Starbucks for college educated labor. I don't think the accounting took into account the current value of the stock options paid. It was a unique situation.

I dissagree. I would like to see those cost models being made for projects in Blue Origin, Masten, Planet, etc. My guess is they would be in the same ballpark with regards to savings.

Shuttle cost somewhere like an order of magnitude more per flight than commercial logistics flights using Falcon/Dragon or Antares/Cygnus. The capabilities weren't remotely similar however. I can break out the unpressurized volume/pressurized volume/upmass/downmass if you would like, but it is a pointless exercise.

Sure, CRS vs Shuttle is apples to oranges and it is unfair comparison.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/11/2017 09:29 pm
The discussion is wandering OT.

What is the point you are trying to make about SLS?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: montyrmanley on 11/11/2017 11:26 pm
Much less late and orders of magnitude cheaper than goverment endeavours. Time and money mean something in private sector.

The whole point of using STS-legacy RS25 engines and solid boosters was to leverage Shuttle technology and shorten development time. So the SLS *started* with a design legacy going back forty years. Nobody counts those years as development time for SLS, but they should. And even with ready-made engines (usually the most time-consuming part of designing a clean-sheet rocket), SLS is *still* looking like it will take more than a decade from inception to flight. Apollo went from the drafting table to flight in about the same period, and that's when engineers were still using pencils and slide-rules.

Even the trouble-plagued STS went from design to flight in about ten years (1971 to 1981), and that included the development of engines, solid boosters, orbiter, and tank. This was in addition to all the other expensive stuff NASA had going on: Viking, Pioneer 1 and 2, Voyager 1 and 2, Galileo, and other lower-profile missions.

So in the 1960's we got a moon-rocket in a decade. In the 1970's we got a re-usable spaceplane in about a decade. Now, NASA can't even deliver the first stage of an expendable rocket, even with the engines already built! It just seems like NASA keeps moving retrograde as the years go by -- spending more, taking longer, and producing less.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 11/11/2017 11:42 pm
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019.  Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 11/11/2017 11:53 pm
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019.  Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.
SLS/Orion has always been getting heat. It is just that it continues to get hotter and could become scalding if it fails to meet the June 2020 date.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 11/12/2017 12:32 am
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019.  Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.

Perfect execution fot the next 2+ years seems almost impossible given SLS development track record. June 2020 will slip almost certainly.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/12/2017 04:24 pm
I do think it is important for SLS/Orion to fly before end of 2019.  Delays are expected with such a complex program, but anything past June 2020 and they'll get heat from all sides.

I'm not sure why you think that. According to the legislation that created the SLS (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf) the SLS was mandated to have become operational by December 31, 2016:

Quote
Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.

That date has come and gone, and Congress has not set a new date. So it sounds pretty open-ended to me.

Plus, other than Orion testing, there is only one mission that is slated for the SLS (the Europa Clipper) which was switched off of an Atlas V 551 - so there is a backup if the SLS is not available.

So as of today there are no time-sensitive programs that depend on the SLS being available, meaning that other than money there are no consequences to SLS schedule slips.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/12/2017 05:07 pm
It is what was designed. A "pay as you go" SHLV from Shuttle parts whose initial design dates from the 1970's era.

I know, because I watched the parts as they were developed, know their design goals/limits, know where the costing comes from. (Also same for EELV, Falcon, and others.) I can even tell you in detail why Shuttle was late and why all the "bad" decisions were made, mostly for then "good" reasons. As well as the politics.

If the objective was a lunar/Mars program "starter" LV, Congress's "plan" or last two attempts wasn't one for a deterministic schedule/cost at all. So why be surprised at missing target(s)?

EELV is the best example of reaching schedule targets. Falcon is the best example of succeeding on/below budget.

The moment either CxP or SLS/Orion veered from something like NLS/Direct you knew where we were heading. So did Congress. And everyone figures that this thing will doddle on eventually with EM 1 and possible EM 2.

(As to the upthread sarcasm about CC, an excellent case can be made for those like ASAP/others intentionally obfuscating the path for CC, which is already 10x better safety than crew flying on Soyuz, possibly to buy time for the other program. This also sometimes causes me to question the efficacy of Orion crew safety, as if the ecessive stringency being applied to CC might be being assumed on Orion but not being critically examined in an equal/better way - that it might not be an exemplar. Case in point was the recent review to see if crew could be launched early on EM1.)

The problem with a "pay as you go program" is, as oldAtlas_Eguy carefully states, there is no budget for recovery of immediate failings, as that is factored into next years budget. This "kick the can down the road" means that no one takes seriously any schedule. (Or, for that matter, performance/cost/capability, as that is assumed to be rectified by another schedule slip/budget down wind from current.)

This has been going on for so long it has become institutionalized. (Bad thing about the Shuttle was when things got institutionalized, everything was "normalization of deviance.") BTW, SLS/Orion haven't even gotten around to where the "bad" decisions as with Shuttle might be made.

If you want a "good" program "fast", you "do a good enough job" on time, carefully fly it a representative number of times, collect up the results, critically analyze, redesign/reprove, qualify even more critically, then fly with iterative updates/convergence on goals. We aren't doing that, nor designing/building/budgeting for that.

So it appears the point of our HSF programs is not to achieve anything new on schedule, but instead indefinitely prevaricate. So why complain about it? WAD
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 11/13/2017 06:13 am
As to the upthread sarcasm about CC, an excellent case can be made for those like ASAP/others intentionally obfuscating the path for CC, which is already 10x better safety than crew flying on Soyuz, possibly to buy time for the other program.
Emphasis mine.
Don't make suggestions like this unless you can prove it. I know ASAP seemingly works double standards but they are not there to benefit one program over another. The key to the observed difference in approach is in how the programs are run.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 11/14/2017 05:41 am
As to the upthread sarcasm about CC, an excellent case can be made for those like ASAP/others intentionally obfuscating the path for CC, which is already 10x better safety than crew flying on Soyuz, possibly to buy time for the other program.
Emphasis mine.
Don't make suggestions like this unless you can prove it. I know ASAP seemingly works double standards but they are not there to benefit one program over another. The key to the observed difference in approach is in how the programs are run.
You're right. Can't. No argument.

Note the word "possibly". Too suggestive? Perhaps "theoretically" better? Or strike entirely?

Am not after baiting professionals of any stripe. Hard to sit in someone else's seat, with those responsibilities/skills.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 11/21/2017 07:49 pm
Nice pictures of the SLS during construction in an article on Wired:

Behind the Scenes as NASA Tests the Most Powerful Rocket Ever (https://www.wired.com/2017/11/behind-the-scenes-nasa-tests-most-powerful-rocket-ever/) | WIRED
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 11/21/2017 08:11 pm
 Hi Space-People: Sorry to butt-in but where does the figure that CC is 10x safer than Soyuz come from, especially since CC hasn't flown yet? Happy Thanksgiving to all!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 11/22/2017 04:02 pm
Hi Space-People: Sorry to butt-in but where does the figure that CC is 10x safer than Soyuz come from, especially since CC hasn't flown yet? Happy Thanksgiving to all!

My understanding is that number comes from the requirement from NASA, that LOC is 1:270 for Commercial Crew.

The below NSF article goes into more detail.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/08/asap-concerns-commercial-crew-loc-risks/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/06/2017 12:46 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 01:25 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/06/2017 01:28 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whatever11235 on 12/06/2017 02:28 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

I hope you are right.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Formica on 12/06/2017 10:48 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty twelve billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Edit: adjusted the sunk cost amount to reflect ncb1397's dose of reality  :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: punder on 12/06/2017 10:56 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

Would you mind quoting the text for those of us who don't do twitter? Thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 12/06/2017 11:04 pm
Attached is the tweet from Eric Berger's space twitter feed (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace).

It would be beyond ironic if SLS delays meant that Europa Clipper failed to reach Europa much sooner than if launched on an Atlas V in 2022.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/06/2017 11:38 pm
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane or tragic! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop an 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept... I asked Mr Bruno about an 8x solid booster Vulcan a couple years back. He said there are no plans, but didn't rule out the idea. An 8x SRM Vulcan/Centaur 5 or ACES should get about 50 metric tons into a low inclination Earth orbit (28.5 degrees approx.). 'Distributed Launch' with or without propellant transfer gets more than 100x metric tons up in 2x close-proximity launches for a fraction of the cost of a single SLS Block 1B (105 tons). Yes - that statement is speculative. But I'd be more than happy to see it honestly debunked: if that's possible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Bubbinski on 12/07/2017 01:12 am
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20? Only thing I can think of would be a change to the EUS upper stage from iCPS, necessitating mods to the launch tower (on the transporter). Any other reasons anyone can think of?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/07/2017 01:14 am
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Just to add a little precision to these discussions. On page 460 of the FY 2018 NASA Budget Request document(linked below), they have a total showing SLS program costs including formulation and development stages. Adding the Prior to 2016 amount to the 2016 actual amount and the 2017 enacted amount yields a figure of 9.923 billion through October 1, 2017(2 months, 5 days ago). Doing the same for Exploration Ground Systems(which is attributable to both Orion and SLS ground support costs) yields a number of 2.068 billion. Total "sunk costs" For SLS are therefore <$12 billion as of 8 weeks ago.

There is some discrepancy between what NASA spent and what was allocated by Congress. For instance, in FY 2016, NASA was allocated $2 billion even for SLS but this newer budget document seems to indicate that $1.922 billion was spent(~96% of appropriations for that year, other years could be less). This partly explains the disconnect between the perceived cost of the SLS program and the actual cost of the SLS program. The budget bills are the only things that make headlines every year, not NASA accounting of the year after the fact. Other explanations for the discrepancies lie with taking the most recent figures and extrapolating figures back to ~2010 when it was in the infancy and conflating constellation costs with the SLS program.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Formica on 12/07/2017 01:16 am
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...

All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS. Bid out launching Orion and DSG components. Let ULA and SpaceX compete with their heavy lift options (Atlas V 551, DIVH, FH). Boeing has demonstrated they can compete on a firm fixed price basis with CST-100; let them do the same with heavy lift. Keep the DSG components on cost plus and give that to Boeing if you have to.

I know that these are not new ideas, and that they border on fantasy. But as someone who came to NSF by way of DIRECT so many years ago, it is heartbreaking to see how SLS has turned out.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/07/2017 01:34 am
2023 doesn't sound right unless they mean the first crewed launch EM-2, which would sound more plausible.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: punder on 12/07/2017 01:39 am
If it is 2023; then that has become literally insane! :'(  Fly EM-1 as EFT-2 on Delta IV-H and dock it with the ISS :(

Replace SLS with Vulcan/Centaur or Vulcan/ACES - with dual launches of each for Exploration-class missions. Direct ULA to develop and 8x solid motor version for heaviest lift concept...

All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.

Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/07/2017 01:57 am
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Formica on 12/07/2017 02:29 am
All viable options to salvage the program, I agree. Any of those paths would preserve some of the pork (a political necessity) while actually going somewhere and doing something.

Better yet, keep Orion as cost plus to satisfy Lockheed and Senator Shelby. End SLS.

Not understanding how ditching SLS and keeping Orion would placate Shelby, who's all about the booster, not the spacecraft (which is built in somebody else's district).

I stand corrected and will update my post.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/07/2017 02:47 am
He clarified in follow on tweets, yes he does mean EM-1. Obviously this is just one guy's opinion, not a fact. But if you want to see where the opinion comes from, go back to page 1 of this thread and take a look. Back in July 2015 they're expecting EM-1 to happen in July 2018, i.e. 3 years out. Now we're in December 2017 and new EM-1 date is June 2020, still 2.5 years out, you can calculate the time dilation factor here.

It was NET July 2018 back then. That wasn't the "risk informed date" as has become obvious. Use the new NET of December 2019. So, in 2.4 years(July 2015 to December 2017), the time to earliest possible launch has shrunk by 1 year(from 3 years to 2 years). Even if you use a ratio of 2.4 years real time to advance 1 year in schedule, the launch goes off in 4.8 years or around October 2022.

But this is a meaningless exercise. In the next 6 months, the NET will still likely be December 2016 and so based on those two arbitrary end points, it would be a 1:1 time dilation factor. The only non-arbitrary way to do this would be to use times when the date is updated as snapshots and not arbitrary start points like July 2015. I haven't done it yet. I'll update this later if I can reconstruct it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/07/2017 11:56 am
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?

Job security for Shelby's Alabama-based workers. SLS is, after all, little more than a massive jobs program at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/07/2017 04:14 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Just to add a little precision to these discussions. On page 460 of the FY 2018 NASA Budget Request document(linked below), they have a total showing SLS program costs including formulation and development stages. Adding the Prior to 2016 amount to the 2016 actual amount and the 2017 enacted amount yields a figure of 9.923 billion through October 1, 2017(2 months, 5 days ago). Doing the same for Exploration Ground Systems(which is attributable to both Orion and SLS ground support costs) yields a number of 2.068 billion. Total "sunk costs" For SLS are therefore <$12 billion as of 8 weeks ago.

There is some discrepancy between what NASA spent and what was allocated by Congress. For instance, in FY 2016, NASA was allocated $2 billion even for SLS but this newer budget document seems to indicate that $1.922 billion was spent(~96% of appropriations for that year, other years could be less). This partly explains the disconnect between the perceived cost of the SLS program and the actual cost of the SLS program. The budget bills are the only things that make headlines every year, not NASA accounting of the year after the fact. Other explanations for the discrepancies lie with taking the most recent figures and extrapolating figures back to ~2010 when it was in the infancy and conflating constellation costs with the SLS program.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2018_budget_estimates.pdf

$12B now, with another 7.8 billion expected to be spent on SLS and Exploration Ground Systems through the end of 2020.

If SLS is canceled after failing to fly in 2020 (or even after 1 unmanned test flight), the total sunk cost will be around $20B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 12/07/2017 05:28 pm
SLS mentioned by Boeing CEO as the way that Boeing will beat SpaceX to Mars.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-elon-musk-mars

Musk's response is classic Musk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938816780444745728
Quote
Do it
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/07/2017 06:07 pm
Some chatter from Eric Berger (Ars Technica) on Twitter about EM-1 launching in 2023 now. Is this actually a valid possibility?! Or is this a total worst case scenario? If it is delayed to 2023 I’m not sure the program would survive.

"Too big to fail" at this point.

Nope.

You don't think SLS has achieved too big to fail status? A twenty twelve billion dollar sunk cost fallacy combined with the political power that protects it... I'm not attacking your opinion, just trying to further discussion. I would be very surprised if they didn't launch it at least once. Of course I would prefer that money go elsewhere, end of cost plus, and all the rest. But we're in farce territory now, and the project shows no sign whatsoever of being cancelled or curtailed.

Edit: adjusted the sunk cost amount to reflect ncb1397's dose of reality  :)

Launching once or twice, never flying crew, and then being cancelled is exactly what I expect to happen.
If these 2023 lines are correct, which I believe is entirely possible, then it won't fly even once.
Either way, it is a failure.

Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/07/2017 06:38 pm
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing,  could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)

But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.

(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)

Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
  1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
  2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
  3. First to do so wins in each category named.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 12/07/2017 07:08 pm
Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.
I've wonder if it's possible to break this link.  What kind of effort would it take to put Orion on either Vulcan ACES or on a New Glenn?  Would refueling a second stage allow these launchers to take Orion anywhere SLS could take it?  If so, that could remove another argument for not canceling SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/07/2017 07:41 pm
Note: SLS costs need to include Orion -- their conception, birth, continued existence, survival, and thus price tag are inexorably linked.
I've wonder if it's possible to break this link.  What kind of effort would it take to put Orion on either Vulcan ACES or on a New Glenn?  Would refueling a second stage allow these launchers to take Orion anywhere SLS could take it?  If so, that could remove another argument for not canceling SLS.

In theory, yes; in practice, no, as Congress would never allow it.

This is 80% of the problem.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/07/2017 11:26 pm
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing,  could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)

But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.

(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)

Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
  1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
  2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
  3. First to do so wins in each category named.

Isn't that what Roadster in space is doing?  Next month?
If you say can't use this example because SpaceX got USG $$ -- though clearly not for FH -- then how will Boeing ever qualify? 

Problem with Boeing boss claim is the arrogance of calling SLS a Boeing rocket.  They didn't fund it, they aren't covering its overruns, they didn't win it based on anything but political chumming.  It's the closest thing to their rocket only because there isn't anything they've designed or developed out there that can compete.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/07/2017 11:50 pm
SLS mentioned by Boeing CEO as the way that Boeing will beat SpaceX to Mars.

http://fortune.com/2017/12/07/boeing-dennis-muilenburg-elon-musk-mars

Musk's response is classic Musk

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/938816780444745728
Quote
Do it
He's just parroting what he heard when he said Dragons to Mars every two years.

I guess he's hoping for the same outcome in this case.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 12/07/2017 11:56 pm
So, if Boeing is going to beat Elon to Mars:

1. What happens to the notional DSG/Europa Clipper launch schedule if Boeing is going to race Musk to the Red Planet?

2. How are they going to get Congress to sign off on the tab?

It might be an interesting new thread to discuss how to get to Mars first if you were the CEO of Boeing and you were going to actually try to pull this off.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 12/08/2017 03:06 am
It might be an interesting new thread to discuss how to get to Mars first if you were the CEO of Boeing and you were going to actually try to pull this off.

The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 12/08/2017 03:13 am
I could see upgrading SLS with liquid reusable landable boosters like a F9.  They would have to provide what 2-4 million lbs thrust to do so.  Then upgrade with a second stage with a J2X or two.  Maybe a second stage with 3 BE-3's and reuse it.  This might get 150 lbs to orbit.  Then build a reusable Nautilus-X craft from 100-150 ton modules.  Then build a reusable Mars lander.  Now we spend another $50 billion and spread it over 10-20 years. 

After SLS is built, are there any Mars plans at all in the works at NASA?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/08/2017 03:32 am
SLS with a 5x RS-25 powered corestage and a pair of 5.4 meter, multi-Raptor powered fully reusable boosters would kick some serious arse. An Exploration Upper Stage with higher thrust RL-10 derivatives or replacements, that was capable of refueling would be a formidable launcher. But you'd need 2x launchpads and a suitable infrastructure at KSC to get a really good flight rate going. The booster I described above could probably get 150 metric tons into LEO per throw. Couple that with a Shuttle-type max flight rate of 5 or 6 per year and you could be talking serious tonnage.

Even the 'standard' SLS corestage of only 4x RS-25 wouldn't lose oodles of lifting power...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 12/08/2017 04:20 am
Possibly a better solution is to replace the core and boosters with a kerolox stage using 19 AR-1 engines. Thrust would be 42.3 MN with 2724.3 t of propellant and 152.7 t dry mass. Development cost would be about $8046M. It would take 100 flights to break even, possibly a lot less if the stage can be made reusable.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 12/08/2017 04:52 am
An 8.4 meter corestage, powered by the 19x AR-1s? That I'd like to see!! That AR-1 project looks like it needs a lifeline, though I think it would be a good engine. There could be two versions - Heavy Lift Expendable corestage and reusable Medium/Heavy lift corestage. Second and Upper stage options could be a 2x J-X with a 2x MB-60 third stage, or a second stage with 7x RL-10s... Heh; I like 'Rocket Legos'... ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2017 08:16 am

The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 12/08/2017 10:35 am
Or develop yourself a lander that can go up in sections within the shrouds of existing launchers (oh, the irony!!!!). Dock it in orbit with a Starliner, some Cygnus/Bigelow habs and a transfer stage and off you go! If you give it a few years, you may be able to use a DSG power and propulsion module for Martian transfer.

The liquid booster idea for the SLS won't work. Remember, the same political directive that got you your mega-rocket won't allow you to shut-out some of it's powerful backers by removing the solid boosters. You are stuck with the design as-is.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 11:16 am
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2017 11:25 am
Or develop yourself a lander that can go up in sections within the shrouds of existing launchers (oh, the irony!!!!). Dock it in orbit with a Starliner, some Cygnus/Bigelow habs and a transfer stage and off you go! If you give it a few years, you may be able to use a DSG power and propulsion module for Martian transfer.

The liquid booster idea for the SLS won't work. Remember, the same political directive that got you your mega-rocket won't allow you to shut-out some of it's powerful backers by removing the solid boosters. You are stuck with the design as-is.

Indeed. And the advanced booster for the 130 metric ton version of SLS is not going to change that:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/ (https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/the-dark-knights-atks-advanced-booster-revealed-for-sls/)

Quote from: Chris Bergin
However, what can’t be estimated is ATK’s foothold as the provider of boosters for NASA’s human space flight program for the past 30 years. A continuation with the familiarity of the solid motors is continually classed as the favored option by SLS sources.

That indication was confirmed in 2014 when William Gerstenmaier, NASAs associate administrator for human exploration and operations, said NASA was no longer planning to begin a competition in 2015 for advanced boosters to replace the ATK solids flying on the first two SLS missions.

In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 11:55 am
...

In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.

Only if SLS still exists in 2030... 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 12/08/2017 12:47 pm

The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.

To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 12/08/2017 12:51 pm

The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.

To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.
Don't think so. Boeing aircraft core business is short-haul aircraft like the 737. Same goes for Airbus with its A320. Those short hops are in fact too short to be practically serviced by BFR.
BFR might potentially eat into the market for long-haul aircraft. Such as the Boeing 777 and Airbus A340.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/08/2017 02:04 pm

The only routes I can see would also make SLS questionable - I mean - if Boeing starts developing a Boeing Follower Rocket on its own, ...
(The aeroplane side)
Given that the Boeing CEO is claiming they will get to Mars first it would be the Boeing Forerunner Rocket.

To be explicit - Boeing-aircraft, after passenger transport BFR starts eating their core business.

Neither BFR nor Boeing aircraft is on topic.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: tea monster on 12/08/2017 03:27 pm
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/08/2017 04:12 pm
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.

What that means is that Muillenburg's underlings have been telling the boss that all's well in SLS-land and Mars is right around the corner... any day now... trust me.  And he buy's it.

It is sad that we have had the ability to go to Mars for 50 years and not the stomach to achieve that goal.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lar on 12/08/2017 04:25 pm
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0

Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc  that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.

( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")

Thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 12/08/2017 04:57 pm
Funny that all these posts carry the underlying assumption that Boeing can't get to Mars with SLS on NASA's (taxpayers') dime which is exactly what Boeing's CEO flatly stated.  Says something about SLS perhaps?

Boeing has always had the ability (for 50 years or so) and opportunity to do what Muilenburg boasted. 

Do it.

If we have been floundering around for 50 years, and suddenly we are off to Mars because the head of Boeing suddenly decides he wants to go as he has rocket envy, then that is a very bad reflection on America, NASA and Washington. So does that mean that if nobody threatened to beat him to it, would we have waited another 30, or 50 or more years?

EDIT: I just want to say that I have no doubts that Boeing, or Lockheed or NASA could get to Mars. As you said, they could have done this at any time in the last 50 years. That is the really sad thing. Nobody would rise to the challenge. Nobody thought it was important enough.

Correction: Nobody thought it was important enough to spend some $200 billion (over the course of a decade and a half or more) to go to Mars.

As far as I can tell, nobody thinks that today, either.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: BeamRider on 12/08/2017 06:04 pm
Less of a gentleman than Elon Musk might have retorted to the Boeing CEO claimed by they would beat him to Mars: “Who are you going to outsource that to, while you’re managing the share price?”
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 12/08/2017 07:55 pm
It is likely that SLS, a program that in one form or another has consumed more than a decade and more than $20 B in funding, massive lobbyist support, broad legislative backing,  could actually be used to reach Mars, ahead of a BFS/BFR, given that it doesn't already exist. (FH doesn't count here because there aren't any missions to Mars planned, although one to show it's possible.)

But as Musk's pithy comment indicates, it's as empty a gesture because there are no missions to Mars planned for it.

(Am not always fond of Musk's gestures. But the Boeing CEO is competing poorly with his own idiot gesture.)

Propose to both CEO's (others as well) of launcher/providers this competition:
  1. Independently wholly fund a launch campaign to heliocentric destination
  2. We'll score it by demonstrated capability of that LV as (in the vicinity, in orbit, landed, HSF)
  3. First to do so wins in each category named.

Isn't that what Roadster in space is doing?  Next month?
Yes.

Trying to make something as much as "apples to apples" as possible.

Quote
If you say can't use this example because SpaceX got USG $$ -- though clearly not for FH -- then how will Boeing ever qualify? 
Note the launch campaign callout bounds the cost to out of pocket for the launch itself, not vehicle development/other.

That way we wouldn't have to descend into that swamp of selective accounting, name calling, and dubious claims.

A launch campaign is a launch campaign - very much a definable thing.

(Now, if you use a reusable or a expendable in the process, in either case it's an asset use charge in the same. Isn't that clever?)

Quote
Problem with Boeing boss claim is the arrogance of calling SLS a Boeing rocket.  They didn't fund it, they aren't covering its overruns, they didn't win it based on anything but political chumming.  It's the closest thing to their rocket only because there isn't anything they've designed or developed out there that can compete.
Red herring.

This thing will go no where. Boeing will claim likely the upcoming Mars mission as the success, and Musk will claim success with his peculiar payload. Then they will have a combined hissy fit over how the other's doesn't apply, so it is nonsense to take this further.

We're in a non-factual age, including on this board, and it disappoints, as all on the internet lets the nonsense "fake" opinion stuff dominate. Very disappointing that you can't have fair back and forth as an eventual expectation.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 12/08/2017 08:36 pm
...

In other words: the advanced boosters will be sole-sourced to OATK and they will be the black knights.

Only if SLS still exists in 2030...

Don't forget that OATK is going to be merged into Northrop Grumman next year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 12/08/2017 09:19 pm
There's a thread for the SpaceX/Boeing challenge now.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44385.0

Let's take any generic (non SLS related, such as mods, schedule changes, new equipment for SLS, etc  that might be needed) to that thread. Neither Boeing aircraft nor BFS nor in space assembly of aldrin cyclers or other transport are on topic.

( posted my initial post here because it was clear to me that the CEO meant SLS as the "Boeing rocket")

Thanks!
This thread seems to be gone... ???
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Darkseraph on 12/09/2017 03:36 am
From this tweet here (https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/939146153932750848).

Quote
Gerst shows slide of the huge test stands etc that will be used for testing SLS components. "This is the role for govt." Make the "massive investment" in facilities and make available to everyone. SpaceX's BFR and Blue Origin's New Glenn can "leverage off of this."

Private companies have already made significant use of Stennis to test engines among other faciltiies. Perhaps companies who want  to develop large reusuable rockets and spacecraft could benefit from the investment in gigantic testing and production faciltiies made for SLS. First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.

Boeing developing a large booster using experience gained from SLS and elsewhere is a long shot but I wouldn't completely rule it out. They have dipped their toes in the waters of commercial spaceflight with CST100-Starliner already and plan to sell seats to private astronauts on ISS flights. Future commercial demand or a government program similar to COTS to stimulate this development would be necessary. The first astronauts who step foot on Mars could go on a Boeing rocket, but not necessarily SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 12/09/2017 03:32 pm
First time I've heard anyone from NASA mention anything about making SLS facilities available to everyone.

NASA has been shopping a lot of the facilities for a while: VAB, 39B, test stands, etc. Just about any space company, newspace included, have made use of Stennis, Plum Brook, or other test sites. Unless you mean facilities unique to SLS, which really are only the new dynamic test stands at Marshall that aren't online yet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/12/2017 04:29 am
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.

President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.

Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.

Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 12/12/2017 12:41 pm
I believe that the heavy rocket should lift heavy payloads that cheaper launch vehicles cannot. Especially at one launch a year.

President Trump has just signed a Policy Directive ordering NASA to return humans to the Moon. Astronauts are going to need habitats to live in and rovers to drive around. These are big heavy items.

Apollo went to the Moon and back each time on a single launch. I suspect lunar payload masses will be increased by staging at one or more spacestations.

Reusable lunar landers, such as an enhanced Xeus, can be kept at a lunar spacestation in low lunar orbit (LLO). The spacestation's arm could transfer the cargo from the visiting vehicle to the lander. The connected depot can repair and refuel the lander. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a spacestation in low lunar orbit?

Solar Electric Propulsion (SEP) space tugs can used to transfer cargo between a low Earth Orbit (LEO) spacestation and a LLO spacestation. What is the maximum mass SLS can send to a LEO spacestation in say a 28° orbit?

SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 12/12/2017 08:05 pm
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 12/12/2017 10:24 pm
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.

As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.

So you are correct let the race begin.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RotoSequence on 12/29/2017 10:10 am
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 12/29/2017 02:23 pm
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 12/29/2017 02:39 pm
Yes, the smaller version of Direct would have used the existing 4 seg boosters from the Shuttle fleet.  It would use 3 RS-25's instead of the current 4, and could grow and stretch (later) to 4 or 5 engines, with a J2X upper stage.  The smaller version could have been fielded several years ago, and delivered 70 tons to orbit.  70 tons, with in space assembly could have done a lot, and be launched with current budget about 6 times a year.  Also, without the long delay that we had. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: PahTo on 12/29/2017 03:46 pm
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

To directly answer your question about large core:  there was a push to employ 5 seg SRBs (and 5 seg SRBs require a longer core stage than was used for STS).  One can assume that it was ATK pushing for the 5 seg, but I don't know for sure the drivers and decision-makers that insisted on 5 seg.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 12/29/2017 04:30 pm
SLS cannot, at the moment, send anything to LLO. There are no payloads beyond the concept stage that have both the endurance and the delta-v to get there. Orion can get to high lunar orbit, and that's about it.
Orion, rather than SLS, limitation, at least for Block 1B.

 - Ed Kyle

The Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) of the Deep Space Gateway due to be launched on EM-2 is a SEP space tug in disguise. A second one can move payloads to LLO. PPE development is at the paid study stage.

In 2022 Bigelow Aerospace hopes to transport a B330 spacestation to LLO using multiple Vulcan launch vehicles.

The race is on.
2022 is just 4 years away and the PPE development and manufacture is not yet on contract. But then again most estimates as to when EM-2 would occur show NET mid 2023 at best and that is without a previous flight of EC to prove out the EUS. So PPE is unlikely to delay the EM-2 flight. Most likely it would be slowed to free up funds to speed up other delayed items needed to get EM-2 launched.

As to B330 and Vulcan/ACES distributed launch in 2022 is an aspirational date as well. A full functional ACES on top of a just became operational Vulcan at best 2 years earlier is not a highly likely event.

So you are correct let the race begin.

Personally, I don't think EM-2 will deploy the PPE. The human rating changes for the ICPS don't have to take place for the current EM-2 because it can seperate right after elliptical earth orbit insertiion. I doesn't have to stick around for the on orbit validation phase of the EM-2 Orion because Orion does the final TLI, limiting possible exposure to micro-meteroid debris from days to hours.

Multiple high ups at NASA are on record supporting a second ML, which means the SLS Block 1 will be able to be used after EM-1 while the second ML is being built. What Bill Hill said recently is telling:

Quote
It would also allow for additional SLS launches between EM-1 and EM-2, provided they use the ICPS, since the first mobile launcher would remain available. “That’s in my mind, the biggest benefit,” Hill said. “We’re not stuck on the ground until we get finished with the modifications. That’s one of the things we’re taking a look at.”
http://spacenews.com/nasa-weighs-new-mobile-launcher-for-sls/

What would SLS launch on Block 1 after EM-1 but before the Block 1B? The obvious answer is EM-2. And we all know that the administration was open to manning EM-1 on the ICPS.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 12/30/2017 12:53 am
Personally I think it is a philosophy difference. The Jupiter (whose time has come and gone btw so let's not go there) was designed to return Americans to space after Shuttle in the quickest way possible, at the least expense, and still obey the Congressional mandate to be Shuttle-derived. SLS was under no such restraints and NASA wanted the biggest heavy lift they could envision and was willing to spend whatever that cost and take as much time as that may take. Beginning with the vehicle we designed that the Congress had signed off on, NASA immediately began the process of morphing, going thru several painful iterations. NASA wanted the Ares-V, finally admitted that it couldn't have it but could get close. The design effort went sideways from there. There is nothing wrong with the SLS. It's a good HLV. But it is, IMO, just too damn big; good for lofting one-of payloads here and there, once every couple of years at enormous costs, but too big and too expensive to be a truly useful launch vehicle. All that is, of course, just my opinion. YMMV.

This certainly put a dent in the narrative that SLS was forced on NASA by congress. If what you said is true, then certain elements inside NASA is just as responsible for the current mass as congress, if not more so. I guess this is NASA HSF's biggest problem, they're eternally optimistic about the budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 12/30/2017 10:59 pm
This certainly put a dent in the narrative that SLS was forced on NASA by congress. If what you said is true, then certain elements inside NASA is just as responsible for the current mass as congress, if not more so.

The relationship between congress, executive branch departments/agencies, and industry lobbies can be incestuous.  Wiki "Iron triangle (US politics)" or find a copy of Gordon Adams' old but essential The Iron Triangle: The Politics of Defense Contracting

In the case of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, there were staffers involved on the relevant congressional committee who were recent employees of NASA and who were detailees from NASA and would be returning to the agency.  We obviously shouldn't expect critical thinking or independent oversight with that kind of revolving door.

Quote
I guess this is NASA HSF's biggest problem, they're eternally optimistic about the budget.

And the costs of their programs.

Although that has been replaced recently with a refusal to generate cost estimates and provide budget assumptions, making program schedule, content, and/or risk entirely elastic.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Bob Shaw on 12/30/2017 11:28 pm
Yes, the smaller version of Direct would have used the existing 4 seg boosters from the Shuttle fleet.  It would use 3 RS-25's instead of the current 4, and could grow and stretch (later) to 4 or 5 engines, with a J2X upper stage.  The smaller version could have been fielded several years ago, and delivered 70 tons to orbit.  70 tons, with in space assembly could have done a lot, and be launched with current budget about 6 times a year.  Also, without the long delay that we had. 

SLS seems to have been an endless procession of u-turns, illogical assumptions and gold-plating. Add in the interminable development of Orion and there's a perfect example of the safest spacecraft and rocket ever - it rarely, if ever, leaves the ground.

I really can't comprehend why a side-mount STS cargo-carrier wasn't built, using almost off-the-shelf STS elements. Or why Shuttle-C wasn't pursued inj the first place. Sigh.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 12/30/2017 11:54 pm
Looking backwards, Bob you are correct.  They could have had side-mount back in the 90's and got 50-60 tons to LEO, and still kept the shuttle fleet for human transportation.  At that point they could have beefed up the shuttle making the nose an escape pod to avoid a Challenger situation.  Maybe even escape during orbit re-entry also.  The side-mount could have delivered modules, cargo, and satellites, while the beefed up shuttle could deliver humans. 

Oh well, we got SLS whenever it gets built.  However by then SpaceX and BO will be delivering things with reusable first stages at least, and BFR/BFS will be coming along.  SLS will then be too big to operate efficiently. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 12/31/2017 06:07 pm
Looking backwards, Bob you are correct.  They could have had side-mount back in the 90's and got 50-60 tons to LEO, and still kept the shuttle fleet for human transportation.  At that point they could have beefed up the shuttle making the nose an escape pod to avoid a Challenger situation.  Maybe even escape during orbit re-entry also.  The side-mount could have delivered modules, cargo, and satellites, while the beefed up shuttle could deliver humans. 

Oh well, we got SLS whenever it gets built.  However by then SpaceX and BO will be delivering things with reusable first stages at least, and BFR/BFS will be coming along.  SLS will then be too big to operate efficiently.

We don't need SpaceX in an SLS thread, there are 10,000 other threads for that.  Re-hashing out side-mount vs in-line is also long dead, I'm sure you could create a dedicated thread for it if you wish.

I do agree there are many decisions I think NASA would admit would do differently knowing how things panned out, however having said that they have created a remarkable launch vehicle and spacecraft. 

I've been listening to people claiming SLS was a paper rocket and would never make it past PDR for years, or that it would never launch.  At some point, opponents need to give it a rest and let things play out.  It may be we don't need SLS/Orion and it gets canceled, or equally as likely it ends up providing unique capabilities to cis-lunar space and Mars orbit that we need. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 12/31/2017 06:15 pm
I really can't comprehend why a side-mount STS cargo-carrier wasn't built, using almost off-the-shelf STS elements. Or why Shuttle-C wasn't pursued inj the first place. Sigh.

They could have had side-mount back in the 90's and got 50-60 tons to LEO, and still kept the shuttle fleet for human transportation.

There were many less costly options for developing an STS-derived heavy lifter than SLS, and one of them could have gone into service much earlier.

But they all would have carried the costs of the STS workforce and infrastructure.  And as we're seeing in the outyears for SLS/Orion, that doesn't leave much budget for exploration hardware development, payloads, and missions.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 12/31/2017 07:51 pm
...

I do agree there are many decisions I think NASA would admit would do differently knowing how things panned out, however having said that they have created a remarkable launch vehicle and spacecraft
...

1. 'Have created' is incorrect tense.
2. In what ways are either spacecraft (capsule) or rocket 'remarkable?'
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ShawnGSE on 01/01/2018 02:36 am
If this thing about 2023 is indeed valid, what would be driving this delay from 2019-20?

Job security for Shelby's Alabama-based workers. SLS is, after all, little more than a massive jobs program at this point.

Very little of the SLS is built in Alabama.  The majority of fab and assembly is in New Orleans at Michoud.  The 2023 thing is almost certainly bogus.  Flight hardware is well into production with full stage integration scheduled for next year.  2019/2020 is a realistic target at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/01/2018 01:26 pm
Aren't the engines built in Alabama, the planning and design team is in Alabama. 

Then there are the solids built in Utah.

It will be launched in Florida.

So you have two senators from each state involved in the SLS.   This keeps it running.  Shelby is just the head of the committee for space. 

If other components are made in other states.  Then those senators will along with the 6 above will continue to vote to fund SLS.  At least until a president and administrator says we can contract out launches cheaper and get more done, and convince them to stop funding SLS and start funding stuff that is actually used in space to be launched by private launch providers.

Oh, BO (Blue Origin) was also mentioned in my thread above as a private provider.  In a few years BO, SpaceX, and ULA with Vulcan/ACES or Centaur V can launch 40 tons each into space.  What can you do with a lot of 40 ton payloads?  Twice the throw weight used to build the ISS with 20 ton or less modules. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 01/01/2018 07:17 pm
Aren't the engines built in Alabama, the planning and design team is in Alabama.
The RS-25 engines were built, and are being reengineered and tested, in Mississippi.  The ICPS was built in Alabama at the ULA plant in Decatur.  The RL10 was probably built in Florida, but I'm not certain.  The SLS core stage tank parts were made in Germany and welded together in Louisiana on a machine assembled by a Swedish company.  MSFC's primary involvement is in structural testing and avionics, I believe. 

Alabama, by the way, now has one senator from each party.

 - Ed Kyle

It was my understanding that the work for RS-25 is mainly conducted at two Aerojet Rocketdyne centers per the NSF article.

Quote
The work is mainly conducted at two Aerojet Rocketdyne centers. The machining, welding, assembly and test of subassemblies takes place at its Canoga Park, California Strategic Fabrication Center. Turbopump assembly takes place at the West Palm Beach, Florida facility. Testing then takes place at Stennis.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/01/nasa-defends-restart-rs-25-production/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/01/2018 10:13 pm
...

I do agree there are many decisions I think NASA would admit would do differently knowing how things panned out, however having said that they have created a remarkable launch vehicle and spacecraft
...

1. 'Have created' is incorrect tense.
2. In what ways are either spacecraft (capsule) or rocket 'remarkable?'

1.)Orion is the most capable spacecraft on the planet in any stage of production.
2.)SLS Block 1 is the most capable launch vehicle on the planet in any stage of production(in terms of payload volume, c3, and raw tonnage to any orbit).

BFR/BFS 2017 might change this but it is a paper rocket/spacecraft at this point, about as real as ITS 2016 was that was going to start flight testing in August 2018 according to Musk's timeline. We will see what it turns out being with all the work-arounds every spacecraft goes through during development and testing(see cross-fed FH, landing legs on Dragon, F9 reusable upper stage, etc.).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/01/2018 11:38 pm
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

It's important to remember the requirements, which came from the Senate members that created Senate Bill S. 3729 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf). From that bill the requirements were defined as:

Quote
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:

(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.

(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.

(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.

(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.

(2) FLEXIBILITY.—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 appro- priations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.

(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and devel- oped, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow- on Space Launch System.

(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Give those requirements, NASA created the SLS we are seeing today.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 01/02/2018 12:55 pm
Clongton mentioned in another thread that SLS is more or less DIRECT's Jupiter Heavy 244. Presuming similar motivations, How did SLS come to end up with such a large core stage?

To directly answer your question about large core:  there was a push to employ 5 seg SRBs (and 5 seg SRBs require a longer core stage than was used for STS).  One can assume that it was ATK pushing for the 5 seg, but I don't know for sure the drivers and decision-makers that insisted on 5 seg.
The 5 segment boosters did not require a longer core. Direct's Jupiter could have used them. The team published several baseball cards showing those configurations. The 5 segment boosters could even have been used on the Shuttle. The original proposals to add the extra segment date from when STS was still in full swing as a way to increase payload to the ISS and if I remember right enable abort to orbit right off the pad.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/02/2018 02:34 pm
Wow, what a difference 10 years makes.  10 years ago, we were talking about Direct vs Constellation.  Which was the cheaper alternative and the quicker alternative.  Direct was of course.  We ended up getting SLS.  Now, 10 years later no rocket has flown, and it may be a few more years to flight at over $1 billion a pop. 

In that 10 years of bureaucratic development of SLS, Blue Origin has tested and landed a sub-orbital vehicle and developed the BE-3 engine, that in my opinion should be used on the upper stage of SLS, or a cluster of 2 or 3.  BO is also developing the BE-4 engine. 

Also in that 10 years SpaceX has developed the F9 into a reusable launch first stage vehicle, with FH about to come on line.  The have test fired the sub-scale Raptor and are on target to get Raptor developed.  They have finalized the basic design of BFR/BFS which will use Raptor. 

Meanwhile SLS plods along and still no rocket.  Really no new engines developed (liquid) that could actually improve SLS, such as liquid boosters, no RL-60, no AR-1, no RD-180 American made, J2-X didn't pan out, 5 seg solids were expensive to develop, no payloads of significance, and is going to wind up too expensive to operate more than once a year. 

All of the above makes SLS seem to us laymen as an expensive boondoggle now because of so called New Space bringing down costs and developing better reusable rockets.

So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2018 02:49 pm
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?

To make the SLS economical to operate and generally useful, NASA needs to do what it did with Transhab. It sold the rights to Bigelow Aerospace who turned it into something that is economical and useful. Get the government *and* the government contractors out of the SLS business entirely and maybe, just maybe, something could be done by a well positioned commercial company to make the vehicle useful and less expensive to operate.

In such a situation, the 1st thing I would recommend is to replace the SRB's with human rated reusable LRB's, similar to the Falcon 9 1st stage. That LRB, when equipped with a 2nd stage, should be capable of putting a fully fueled and outfitted Orion spacecraft into LEO. Reserve the HLV for cargo only and use the boosters as reusable Orion launchers.

Do that and we'd have something generally useful that could be operated at a reasonable cost.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/02/2018 03:01 pm
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?

To make the SLS economical to operate and generally useful, NASA needs to do what it did with Transhab. It sold the rights to Bigelow Aerospace who turned it into something that is economical and useful. Get the government *and* the government contractors out of the SLS business entirely and maybe, just maybe, something could be done by a well positioned commercial company to make the vehicle useful and less expensive to operate.

In such a situation, the 1st thing I would recommend is to replace the SRB's with human rated reusable LRB's, similar to the Falcon 9 1st stage. That LRB, when equipped with a 2nd stage, should be capable of putting a fully fueled and outfitted Orion spacecraft into LEO.

Do that and we'd have something generally useful that could be operated at a reasonable cost.

Blue Origin is developing a LRB that fits that exact description, but I doubt Bezos wants anything to do with operating SLS. IMO NASA should twist Boeing's arm to buy and operate SLS since Boeing already builds the core stage. Boeing can buy NG LRBs from Blue, since their JV is already basically in bed with Blue for BE-4 anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/02/2018 03:06 pm
Is it too late to change directions?  They initially were trying to keep the existing shuttle work force, but that didn't work out.  Too long from shuttle decommissioning to SLS launching.  Also not enough SLS launches to justify a work force with only one launch a year. 

Is F9 capable of launching Orion with a single core in expendible mode?  Or with FH? in reusable mode? 

Can 4 F9's be strapped to an SLS core for boosters? 

My ideal rocket would be to make the RD-180 in America, build a 10m rocket with about 12 RD-180s around two RD-180s in the center and make it reusable with the two center ones used to land it.  Then use a cluster of 7 BE-3's for a second stage.  This would make for what I figure to be a 150 ton launcher.  Cheaper than SLS and partly reusable.  With the BE-3's the upper stage might be made reusable.  It would also be able to launch from the Cape.  It would be like a F9 on steroids. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 03:27 pm
Is it too late to change directions?

Yes, it's too late. The engineering phase for the initial version of the SLS is winding down and the SLS program is entering the production and test phase. I have no doubt what they are building will work and be safe, the only question is whether there is a need for it by the time it becomes operational.

Quote
They initially were trying to keep the existing shuttle work force, but that didn't work out.  Too long from shuttle decommissioning to SLS launching.  Also not enough SLS launches to justify a work force with only one launch a year.

Politicians say the darnedest things, and not everything they say is true.

As to the future of the SLS, remember it takes an act of Congress to change it's current direction, and I don't expect Congress will want to increase the amount of money the program gets, so what you see is what you get.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/02/2018 03:28 pm
Anything can be done, if you convince enough people that it's worthwhile. The question is really is it worthwhile? And is it relevant to this thread? Orion on F9/FH and F9 boosters for SLS has been hashed out many times elsewhere. It's probably not worthwhile or relevant.

RP-1 main stage designs were considered and rejected for a variety of reasons before starting SLS in 2011, although I doubt fly-back designs or VTVL received any serious consideration. If VTVL designs are significantly successful, SLS will be wholly obsolete in short order. If they fail (either technically or economically), there is little reason to add them to SLS - the SRBs aren't driving much of the overall cost of the vehicle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 01/02/2018 04:04 pm
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?

To make the SLS economical to operate and generally useful, NASA needs to do what it did with Transhab. It sold the rights to Bigelow Aerospace who turned it into something that is economical and useful. Get the government *and* the government contractors out of the SLS business entirely and maybe, just maybe, something could be done by a well positioned commercial company to make the vehicle useful and less expensive to operate.

In such a situation, the 1st thing I would recommend is to replace the SRB's with human rated reusable LRB's, similar to the Falcon 9 1st stage. That LRB, when equipped with a 2nd stage, should be capable of putting a fully fueled and outfitted Orion spacecraft into LEO. Reserve the HLV for cargo only and use the boosters as reusable Orion launchers.

Do that and we'd have something generally useful that could be operated at a reasonable cost.

I agree, but the problem is a lack of payloads for SLS. If Orion is launched on a smaller rocket, the 1.5 architecture from Constellation, what is there to launch on SLS? Still need at least one flight per year to keep the program going.

Congress has supported SLS and Orion, but hasn't supported a program to keep them flying.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 05:54 pm
Wow, what a difference 10 years makes.  10 years ago, we were talking about Direct vs Constellation.  Which was the cheaper alternative and the quicker alternative.  Direct was of course.  We ended up getting SLS.  Now, 10 years later no rocket has flown, and it may be a few more years to flight at over $1 billion a pop. 

Yeah, Constellation was cancelled(shortly after a rocket did fly). This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion. 8 years later and we are still waiting. These aren't shovel ready projects. Apollo would have gone the same way had it been canned in 67, or Shuttle had it been canned in 79.  But if all Constellation did was identify certain Lunar polar regolith is about 5% carbon monoxide and 5% water(with some other useful species for nitrogen) and kept the nuclear deterrent industrial base somewhat operational, it was at least somewhat useful.

Believe me, there will be more wasted money in space and dead ends before everything is said and done, which is just a small amount of what is wasted here on Earth. I mean, even stuff like wedding's/honey moons in space would probably be classified as waste even though it is economic activity and expands capabilities. Tourism at $7 trillion per year is probably where you want to go to find money you can save that is just conspicuous consumption that has little value. 10% of .5% of the federal budget is essentially nothing in the grand scheme of things. If it was really about the money, people would be probably just as upset that Planetary gets $2 billion per year but didn't launch anything this year.

edit: Actually, I was trying to find what the science mission directorate as a whole launched in 2017, and I couldn't find any dedicated launch. Was it all just co-manifested for ISS delivery and/or sub-orbital? I must be missing a launch here? Sigh, at least 2018 might be bonkers(hopefully, maybe...if a bunch of stuff doesn't blow up):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxguTV-xwiI
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/02/2018 06:03 pm
I disagree some Chuck.  Doing anything new, especially to SLS, will only increase costs, increase time required for the first flight, increase complexity, and decrease the probability SLS will ever launch and/or be affordable.

I am sure you know the possibility of the development path you advocate vanished when NASA decided not to scar the MLP for liquids which dealt a death blow to the use of an LRB powered by an F1B (or whatever).  I don't think the thing could even accept an SRB with a different foot print.

I think there are only two plausible courses of action:  (1) Continue on the course we are on.  (2) Cancel SLS/Orion and go with Falcon 9/Dragon, Falcon Heavy, Atlas V/CST100, and maybe Vulcan.  Hell.  I'd even look at Ariane 5.  But it would cost more money and time, but might get us back with Americans launched from American soil, with American Boosters, in American Spacecraft before this decade is out.  (Maybe Dragon and CST will accomplish that this year, but I wouldn't predict it.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/02/2018 06:13 pm
The only decision for SLS is to fly as designed or not at all. The exception is EUS which has yet to reach CDR and by definition yet to finish design. Which is why there are studies about what is the best engine for EUS long term cost/schedules/performance.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2018 07:22 pm
I disagree some Chuck.  Doing anything new, especially to SLS, will only increase costs, increase time required for the first flight, increase complexity, and decrease the probability SLS will ever launch and/or be affordable.

The question I answered Mike was "what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?".
It wasn't whether of not making any changes at this point would speed things up.

I agree with what your saying but the question was how to "ultimately" make it less costly to operate.
Right now it is set up to cost the most amount possible to operate. And that's because it is being run as a government program by a government agency that has no cost accountability and being serviced by government contractors whose only interest is to stretch out the program for as long as possible in order to extract  the maximum amount of funding from it as possible. The only way to improve that situation is to get the government the hell out of the program and take their greedy contractors with them. That's the only possible answer to the question.

Whether or not that is a practical thing to do at this point is a different question and if asked I would say "No, it isn't even possible at this point", but my original answer still addresses the original question.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/02/2018 07:36 pm
Chuck,

Thanks for the clarification.  I missed the real intent, but after re-re-reading, I got it and I agree with your response.  Sorry for the misunderstanding on my part.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/02/2018 07:59 pm
I disagree some Chuck.  Doing anything new, especially to SLS, will only increase costs, increase time required for the first flight, increase complexity, and decrease the probability SLS will ever launch and/or be affordable.

The question I answered Mike was "what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?".
It wasn't whether of not making any changes at this point would speed things up.

I agree with what your saying but the question was how to "ultimately" make it less costly to operate.
Right now it is set up to cost the most amount possible to operate. And that's because it is being run as a government program by a government agency that has no cost accountability and being serviced by government contractors whose only interest is to stretch out the program for as long as possible in order to extract  the maximum amount of funding from it as possible. The only way to improve that situation is to get the government the hell out of the program and take their greedy contractors with them. That's the only possible answer to the question.

Whether or not that is a practical thing to do at this point is a different question and if asked I would say "No, it isn't even possible at this point", but my original answer still addresses the original question.

NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles.  The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop.  NASA then simply buys services like COTS. 

That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 01/02/2018 08:21 pm
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.

Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 08:26 pm
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.

Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.

Commercial Crew replaces ISS rotation flights on Ares-1/Orion. Ares-1 was cancelled, leaving Orion without a launch vehicle for a while, except for the Delta-IV Heavy, which could put it in LEO (but wasn't human rated), but that mission for Orion was replaced by Commercial Crew. So, yes, the Orion ISS flights were cancelled for Commercial Crew about 8 years ago.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 01/02/2018 08:28 pm
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.

Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.

Lars, Ares-1/Orion, while 2 different types of vehicles were envisioned together; Orion being the spacecraft and Ares-1 being Orion's launch vehicle. Commercial crew, as a program, was conceived in the same way as a spacecraft and it's launcher. In this case it is Dragon/Falcon and CST100/Atlas. From this pov ncb is correct.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 01/02/2018 08:44 pm
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.

Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.

Commercial Crew replaces ISS rotation flights on Ares-1/Orion. Ares-1 was cancelled, leaving Orion without a launch vehicle for a while, except for the Delta-IV Heavy, which could put it in LEO (but wasn't human rated), but that mission for Orion was replaced by Commercial Crew. So, yes, the Orion ISS flights were cancelled for Commercial Crew about 8 years ago.

From a certain limited POV, yes... But the Orion to ISS flights was just a few (or one) test flight(s). Ares-1/Orion was never supposed to be an permanent ISS crew rotation solution, after all funding the whole Constellation project depended on ISS being dropped in the pacific ocean.

So the two projects you draw a line through had a tangential connection - yes - but that is all. And without the same funding levels for both projects, any argument that it took X years to change tracks is not really that persuasive.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 08:51 pm
This is what you can expect if you stop the pipeline, it takes a lot of time to get back going again building something different. You can see that with Commercial Crew replacing Ares-1/Orion.

Huh, What? Commercial Crew did not replace Ares-1. Commercial Crew did not replace Orion. Orion is still around... So I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but it is built on very flimsy ground if you do not understand how these programs relate to each other.

Commercial Crew replaces ISS rotation flights on Ares-1/Orion. Ares-1 was cancelled, leaving Orion without a launch vehicle for a while, except for the Delta-IV Heavy, which could put it in LEO (but wasn't human rated), but that mission for Orion was replaced by Commercial Crew. So, yes, the Orion ISS flights were cancelled for Commercial Crew about 8 years ago.

From a certain limited POV, yes... But the Orion to ISS flights was just a few (or one) test flight(s). Ares-1/Orion was never supposed to be an permanent ISS crew rotation solution, after all funding the whole Constellation project depended on ISS being dropped in the pacific ocean.

So the two projects you draw a line through had a tangential connection - yes - but that is all. And without the same funding levels for both projects, any argument that it took X years to change tracks is not really that persuasive.

I love the way back machine:

Quote
Orion improves on the best features of Project Apollo and the Space Shuttle Program, increasing the likelihood of success. Versatility will be Orion's trademark. It is being designed to fly to the moon, but could also be used to service the International Space Station in low-Earth orbit.
http://web.archive.org/web/20061206040155/http://www.nasa.gov:80/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html

edit:
and 2007:
Quote
Orion will be capable of carrying crew and cargo to the space station.
http://web.archive.org/web/20071010023820/http://www.nasa.gov:80/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

and 2008:

Quote
The larger size will allow Orion to accommodate four crew members on missions to the moon, and six on missions to the International Space Station or Mars-bound spacecraft. Orion is scheduled to fly its first missions to the space station by 2014 and carry out its first sortie to the moon by 2020.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618083331/http://www.nasa.gov.:80/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 01/02/2018 08:55 pm
I'm not sure what the point of that was - no one disputes that Orion could service/dock with ISS. It was always a consideration for early test flights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/02/2018 09:20 pm
Again, what a difference 10-11 years make.  Problem is, now SLS has taken way to long to develop, while being passed by private launchers.  Also, the 10 billion or so spent on SLS could have been spent on a Nautilus X type in space spacecraft to actually take us beyond LEO, and could have been built by now.  We had Atlas and Delta.  Both having more launches to build Nautilus X could have brought launch costs down.  It may also have lead to Atlas V Phase II, a single stick 5 to 5.5m diameter dual RD-180 engine that could match Delta V heavy in launch ability, and a three core heavy version of this could have placed about 70 tons into LEO, matching SLS's minimum capability. 

I predict that within 10 years SLS will be cancelled.  It will never get NASA to Mars.  By then we will have FH, New Glenn, and maybe BFR/BFS, and also maybe New Armstrong.  All reusable or at least reusable boosters.  Vulcan may be flying and with the larger model with solid boosters can get 40 tons to LEO matching FH reusable and NG reusable giving us three 40 ton boosters.  A lot can be done with 40 ton modules and fuel depots. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 09:32 pm
I'm not sure what the point of that was - no one disputes that Orion could service/dock with ISS. It was always a consideration for early test flights.

No, ISS servicing drove requirements:

Quote
While the CEV design was sized for lunar missions carrying a crew of four, the vehicle was
also designed to be reconfigurable to accommodate up to six crew for International Space
Station (ISS) and future Mars mission scenarios. The CEV can transfer and return crew and
cargo to the ISS and stay for 6 months in a quiescent state for emergency crew return. The
lunar CEV design has direct applications to International Space Station (ISS) missions without
significant changes in the vehicle design. The lunar and ISS configurations share the same
Service Module (SM), but the ISS mission has much lower delta-V requirements. Hence, the
SM propellant tanks can be loaded with additional propellant for ISS missions to provide
benefits in launch aborts, on-orbit phasing, and ISS reboost. Other vehicle block derivatives
can deliver pressurized and unpressurized cargo to the ISS.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/140649main_ESAS_full.pdf

Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?

And it even said Mike Griffin wanted a goal of having it running by the time Shuttle retired:

Quote
Dr. Michael Griffin was named the new NASA Administrator in April 2005. With concurrence
from Congress, he immediately set out to restructure NASA’s Exploration Program
by making its priority to accelerate the development of the CEV to reduce or eliminate the
planned gap in U.S. human access to space. He established a goal for the CEV to begin operation
in 2011 and to be capable of ferrying crew and cargo to and from the ISS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/02/2018 10:04 pm
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.

Variant Orion proposals included those for weight constraints, stage performance and waste compartments etc...

Edit to add: Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=353
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7dKlL5m9Kw
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 10:11 pm
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?

It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.

The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.

Quote
And it even said Mike Griffin wanted a goal of having it running by the time Shuttle retired:

Quote
Dr. Michael Griffin was named the new NASA Administrator in April 2005. With concurrence
from Congress, he immediately set out to restructure NASA’s Exploration Program
by making its priority to accelerate the development of the CEV to reduce or eliminate the
planned gap in U.S. human access to space. He established a goal for the CEV to begin operation
in 2011 and to be capable of ferrying crew and cargo to and from the ISS.

As the 6+ years since the last Shuttle flight has shown this was a political goal, but not necessary from an operations standpoint for the ISS. Michael Griffin tried to justify a lot of things about the Constellation program with weak or non-existent reasons.

For instance, claiming the Delta IV Heavy had unavoidable blackout zones for carrying crew, when in fact there weren't any. Griffin needed the Ares I to be developed to carry crew instead of using the Delta IV Heavy so that Ares I could fund part of the development of Ares V.

Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 10:32 pm
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?

It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.

The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.

Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter

You could likely extend it farther with an upgrade to the Shuttle to Station Power Transfer System or a solar panel pallet to replace the EDO pallet. Shuttle was more than capable of servicing ISS solo with some minimal modifications. And then you had the Crew Return Vehicle that wouldn't even require Shuttle/Soyuz to be continually docked. Worse comes to worse, you just keep a shuttle available to launch like they did in later years of the program to rescue a crew from a damaged heat-shield.

Quote
Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.

Whether or not Soyuz was required to keep ISS operational, the fact is that it didn't cost half a billion dollars a year for Russia to provide that capability when the U.S. had its own crew transport. So, how tenable our situation is vs. how tenable the situation was with Shuttle depends on what you think about tax dollars being used in that way. Presumably, they should benefit Americans, not Russians. And the bill from Russia will easily be in the $4-5 billion range. And so, like I said before, if it really was about the money, other issues would be just as controversial if not more so than SLS.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/02/2018 11:26 pm
Soyuz was only a stopgap measure and not part of the original plan for ISS which proposed a full compliment of 7 crew members. The X-38/CRV met the need for station evacuation of 7 and for possible launch of 4 IIRC on Ariane V  for rotation via a partnership with ESA. Constellation and Orion then came along and ESA once considered CTV on Ariane V. Orion/Ares/SLS has had a convoluted and tortured past that involved and affected multiple partners on both sides if the Atlantic in different ways...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 01/03/2018 12:20 am
Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...

X-38/CRV was cancelled in 2002, some years before the Columbia accident, ESAS, and Orion.  Cause was a multi-billion dollar cost overrun on ISS that NASA delivered to the Bush II White House at the beginning of its term.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/03/2018 12:28 am
Seems like NASA has had a lot of multi-billion dollar overruns for a lot of stuff.  Contractors who depend on the government seem to overrun the most and take longer to develop stuff.  Boy, if we had to fight WWII again the way our government operates now, we would loose, just on the bureaucracy alone, not just cost. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/03/2018 12:54 am

Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_Duration_Orbiter

You could likely extend it farther with an upgrade to the Shuttle to Station Power Transfer System or a solar panel pallet to replace the EDO pallet. Shuttle was more than capable of servicing ISS solo with some minimal modifications. And then you had the Crew Return Vehicle that wouldn't even require Shuttle/Soyuz to be continually docked. Worse comes to worse, you just keep a shuttle available to launch like they did in later years of the program to rescue a crew from a damaged heat-shield.

The ISS needed a lifeboat capable of three months worth of on orbit time, not one month. Nor is a launch on need  a practical solution for lifeboat duty.The idea of a lifeboat is to provide a quick escape from problems like fire, medical emergency, loss of pressure or chemical spill.


 We were dependant on Soyuz when the shuttle flew. In addition the combination of cargo and crew caused problems such as what to do when an important piece of cargo is running late but astronauts are on board and need a ride home  NASA then used Soyuz to both function as lifeboat and to carry crews up while the shuttle focused on completing construction.

The only viable lifeboats were Soyuz(cheapest and needed no development), the CRV(cancelled due to ISS overruns) and post Columbia Orion.

Orion was provide cargo and crew to the ISS Originally but problems with Ares -1 development and costs made NASA turn to alternatives. Commercial cargo at first and then Commercial crew. Congress created SLS primarily to keep the shuttle jobs in place.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 01/03/2018 01:07 am
Seems like NASA has had a lot of multi-billion dollar overruns for a lot of stuff.  Contractors who depend on the government seem to overrun the most and take longer to develop stuff.  Boy, if we had to fight WWII again the way our government operates now, we would loose, just on the bureaucracy alone, not just cost.

It is a product of old space. If Congress does not provide funding or enough funding then things get delayed or not done. New space get some of it's funding privately and is not dependant on Congress to the same degree. The other advantage is that decisions can be made more rapidly when the Contractor is in control of the product 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 02:01 am
Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...

X-38/CRV was cancelled in 2002, some years before the Columbia accident, ESAS, and Orion.  Cause was a multi-billion dollar cost overrun on ISS that NASA delivered to the Bush II White House at the beginning of its term.
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost and Columbia was 2003 (some months, not some years) they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station which led to the CEV competition...aka Orion in 2005... CxP and SLS suffers the same lack of focus and redirection in common which results in waste of time and money...
http://www.astronautix.com/o/orioncev.html
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/03/2018 02:46 am
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?

It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.

The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.

Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...

I know it's fun to think about what would be possible with unlimited money and time, but let's stick with reality - the Shuttle could not perform 6-month lifeboat duty for ISS personnel.

Quote
Quote
Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.

Whether or not Soyuz was required to keep ISS operational, the fact is that it didn't cost half a billion dollars a year for Russia to provide that capability when the U.S. had its own crew transport.

Not sure what you are talking about, since when Griffin made his decision on Orion for the ISS we were only paying $25M per seat to the ISS. As a reminder, we historically spent $1.2B per Shuttle flight.

Quote
So, how tenable our situation is vs. how tenable the situation was with Shuttle depends on what you think about tax dollars being used in that way.

Up to the moment the Orion would have lifted off to the ISS, we would have been relying on Russia for transportation to the ISS.

From what we know from the Augustine Commission, the Ares I would not have been ready in time to support the end of the ISS. And from what we know of the history of the Orion today it's highly unlikely that the Orion CEV would have been ready to support the end of the ISS.

So considering all of that, $25M per seat looks like a bargain.

Quote
Presumably, they should benefit Americans, not Russians.

Back in 2005 our relations with Russia were pretty good, and we were happy to have them as partners. Remember they kept us in space after the Columbia accident, so let's remember history correctly.

Quote
And the bill from Russia will easily be in the $4-5 billion range.

Over about 18 years? Sounds like a bargain.

Quote
And so, like I said before, if it really was about the money, other issues would be just as controversial if not more so than SLS.

The money we paid to Russia resulted in actual services. The money we've spent on the SLS so far has only resulted in jobs, but nothing that has been needed by a customer. Yet.

Maybe that will change, or maybe not. We'll have a better idea when Trump's proposed budget is released in a few months...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 01/03/2018 03:00 am
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost

CRV was over $1B at cancellation.

The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.

Quote
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station

No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.

Quote
which led to the CEV competition...

CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.

A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements.  Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 01/03/2018 06:34 am
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles.  The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop.  NASA then simply buys services like COTS. 

That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.

We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.
Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.

But I digress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 12:40 pm
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost

CRV was over $1B at cancellation.

The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.

Quote
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station

No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.

Quote
which led to the CEV competition...

CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.

A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements.  Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight and is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan... It could not carry 7 person crew for evacuation, even with two docked. Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass (only upmass on Progress) and no unpressurised upmass. Last I checked the US does not belong to Russia, yet...

-CEV was a term that evolved from the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) program which included the HL-20, MPS (Multi-Purpose Spacecraft) later became the MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) program which means they wanted "one" spacecraft that could be used with mods for ISS servicing, Lunar and eventually Mars flights... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

"Please stop trying to revise history with your Pro-Russia agenda"...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/03/2018 12:52 pm
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles.  The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop.  NASA then simply buys services like COTS. 

That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.

We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.
Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.

But I digress.

Those contractors could easily be well-padded with contracts to build payloads and on-orbit hardware instead of launch vehicles. Almost all of them make spacecraft or at least spacecraft subsystems.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 01/03/2018 01:49 pm
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

Exactly.  X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun.  At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B.  By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf (https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf)

Quote
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight

ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program.  It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.

And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things. 

Quote
and is a result of mismanagement  and desperation "not" a cogent plan...

I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Quote
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass  and no unpressurised upmass.

This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.

Quote
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

Which is exactly my point.  CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.

Quote
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

It didn't.  I was the starting COTS program executive.  The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 01/03/2018 03:33 pm
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.



A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

That cadence would have been amazing.  2 Shuttles on the pad, one for the planned mission, one for the LON mission.  Shuttle one launches, STS-3xx/LON stays on Pad-loads its cargo/crew, redesignated to STS-??? then launches 3 weeks later. 15 launches/year was to be the manifest for 1986 before it all went down tubes.
Thread about "manifested" 1986 STS missions.
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26960.0

There was capability for dual concurrent Shuttle missions as this was a contingency plan for "One day weather wave off would have caused overlap."-Jim of STS-61-F-Challenger 5/15/86 and landed on 5/19/86 and STS-61G-Atlantis to launch 5/20/86 and landed 5/24/86 after deploying Galileo. Galileo was launched using an Inertial Upper Stage(solid propellant-no LH2/LOx in the payload bay of the Shuttle) instead of the LH2/LOx powered Centaur as per safety changes following STS-51L on October 18, 1989-STS-34-Atlantis.
Both of these missions originally were planned for using the Centaur-G LH2 upper stages, as such IIRC both of these missions were 4 person crews, would have been launched using 109% RPL on the SSME's which during this time period were still the "Phase-I" SSMEs or RS-25, not RS-25-A, RS25-C or RS-25-D, but the RS-25 that had improvements made for usage at 104% RPL and for greater service life over the FMOF (first manned orbital flight) engines (ME-2005,ME-2006, ME-2007 which were used for STS-1 through STS-5(so the first 4 "test" missions and the Shuttle 1st "operational mission.
Apparently there was initial questions about the Centaur-Shuttle missions and the ability for the orbiters to RTLS/ TAL/AOA due to landing weight in regards to the landing gear and the lack of safe methods of dumping the cryo propellants from the Orbiters payload bay.

C'mon EM-1, my campsite at Jetty Park has been booked for Summer 2020.


Pic#1 Endeavor/Atlantis at Pads 39-A AND LC-39-B concurrently.
Pic#2 Shuttle/Centaur

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 03:43 pm
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...

Exactly.  X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun.  At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B.  By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.

https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf (https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdf)

Quote
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight

ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program.  It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.

And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things. 

Quote
and is a result of mismanagement  and desperation "not" a cogent plan...

I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Quote
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass  and no unpressurised upmass.

This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.

Quote
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)

Which is exactly my point.  CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.

Quote
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...

It didn't.  I was the starting COTS program executive.  The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M, CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe, penny wise and pound foolish...

Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 01/03/2018 04:49 pm
I agree.  NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology.  Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce.  NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.

Yes. It's almost as if they *wanted* the alternatives to fail... Any human spaceflight vehicle alternative to Shuttle was a risk to Shuttle, and it was only the cancellation of Shuttle that finally led to Commercial Crew. And even then it has been a yearly battle of tooth and nail to keep the program funded at decent levels, as the Shuttle forces of the NASA industrial complex now have morphed into SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 01/03/2018 05:40 pm
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M

Yes, another low-ball HSF estimate.  NASA's history since Apollo is replete with them.

Quote
CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe,

O'Keefe was not Administrator when CRV was cancelled.

When the Bush II Administration came into office, NASA HSF handed the White House a $5 billion cost overrun on ISS.  The decision was made at the White House, not NASA, to get the ISS budget under control.

That meant two things.  First, forcing George Abbey out of the JSC Center Director's chair.  And second, defining an end to the ISS development -- "Core Complete" -- and terminating the elements after that, especially the more dubious ones, including CRV.

Quote
penny wise and pound foolish...

NASA competes in the civil R&D portion of the federal budget.  It's not a huge pie.  For example, that $5 billion overrun on ISS alone is more (much more at the time) than the annual budget of the National Cancer Institute. 

Quote
Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...

No, it's not.  Mir was largely a national development program.  ISS was explicitly an international one.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 01/03/2018 07:51 pm
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.


NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.

Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.

Cheers!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 08:09 pm
Originally:
Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.
Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.


NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.

Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.

Cheers!
Yes, quite right, thank you... In my minds eye was Orion on DIRECT Jupiter 241/246 or Ares V Lite...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/03/2018 08:33 pm
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf) stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—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.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/03/2018 10:40 pm
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011?  I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.

Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article (http://www.businessinsider.com/space-travel-per-seat-cost-soyuz-2016-9):

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/57c987e809d2939b008b5da1-1667/nasa-russia-price-seat-launch-astronauts-business-insider.png)

Quote
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.

Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3729enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3729enr.pdf) stated:

Quote
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.
(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue the
development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.
(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—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.
(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purpose
crew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

Quote
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations.  Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.

I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
A suggestion would be to cross post this into Commercial Crew thread.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: JDTractorGuy on 01/20/2018 01:45 pm
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem.  This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs.  Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that.  I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX amazing people.
</Rant mode off>
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 01/20/2018 02:44 pm
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem.  This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs.  Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that.  I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX amazing people.
</Rant mode off>

Both of your senators (each state gets two) and your congressman.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/20/2018 03:24 pm
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change?  Is it my congressman or my senator?

<Rant mode on>
This is not a joke post.  I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped.  I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong.  Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem...
</Rant mode off>

What you're seeing today is the result of how the program was created, and how it was created was in a most unusual way.

So yes, contact your congressional representatives, but quite honestly there is nothing that can be done about the SLS program as of today, since this was all essentially pre-determined when the SLS was created.

I would suggest that you look into how large hardware programs are SUPPOSED to be proposed, developed and built, and then see how the SLS has differed from that. Maybe that will help you to understand why we're seeing what's going on today. And if you do your research right, you'll find that you have to go all the way back to 2005 in order to fully understand how we have ended up where we are.

This thread is not the right one to be doing research (general discussion vs history), but there is a lot of discussions elsewhere on NSF that you could start with.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: IanThePineapple on 01/20/2018 04:18 pm
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost?  Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters?  A good second stage?
Sorry for the delay.  I just ran across this question.  I try to avoid this thread these days.

In my mind, the key is ultimately going to be the cost of propulsion, especially of the RS-25 core stage engines.  They will have to build new engines at some point.  Cost control will be paramount.  I wish this work could be opened for truely competitive bidding.

EUS and its engines will also be a key cost driver.  The engines and other systems must be common with at least one other commercial stage or cost control will be impossible.

But the real cost of SLS/Orion that needs to see some control is for Orion.  That barter exchange for Service Module will shift to real money (Euros) in the future (there are only so many AJ-10s, and they don't make them anymore), and does anyone see evidence of cost-control as a consideration in the design of the CM? 

 - Ed Kyle

The RL-10s cost ~$19M each IIRC. So just the engines on the EUS cost more than a full Falcon 9 (with no reuse factored in), or potentially around the same price as a fully reused FH.

That price needs to go doooown!  ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/21/2018 04:16 am
Cost of liquid engines only:

4 RL-10's $80M
4 RS-25E's ($55M each) $220M

= $300M

Now add two SRBs and tanks and ......

So the incremental cost is well over $500M.

The pad costs are hopefully not more than the previously estimated $800M/year (includes everything: processing, GSE, VAB, pad  - maintence, operations).

That puts the minimum absolute cost if you launched 2 a year at not less than $1B each launch. At 1 per year it is about $1.4B each launch. But in budget for the year launching two in 1 year requires a budget of $2B but launching only 1 a year requires only a budget of $1.4B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/21/2018 12:02 pm
Cost of liquid engines only:

4 RL-10's $80M
4 RS-25E's ($55M each) $220M

= $300M

Now add two SRBs and tanks and ......

So the incremental cost is well over $500M.

The pad costs are hopefully not more than the previously estimated $800M/year (includes everything: processing, GSE, VAB, pad  - maintence, operations).

That puts the minimum absolute cost if you launched 2 a year at not less than $1B each launch. At 1 per year it is about $1.4B each launch. But in budget for the year launching two in 1 year requires a budget of $2B but launching only 1 a year requires only a budget of $1.4B.

That's before payload, of course.  Add an Orion and a ride-share DSG module each time for typical budgets.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/21/2018 03:17 pm
Cost of liquid engines only:

4 RL-10's $80M
4 RS-25E's ($55M each) $220M

= $300M

Now add two SRBs and tanks and ......

So the incremental cost is well over $500M.

The pad costs are hopefully not more than the previously estimated $800M/year (includes everything: processing, GSE, VAB, pad  - maintence, operations).

That puts the minimum absolute cost if you launched 2 a year at not less than $1B each launch. At 1 per year it is about $1.4B each launch. But in budget for the year launching two in 1 year requires a budget of $2B but launching only 1 a year requires only a budget of $1.4B.

That's before payload, of course.  Add an Orion and a ride-share DSG module each time for typical budgets.
It's the allowed budget level that is the real problem for SLS.

The budget would probably never get as high as $1.5B / year just for the SLS LV line and any more than the $800M / year for ground support. That gives a total of not more than $2.3B which must also handle upgrades and future development costs. If launching 1 per year there is enough remaining to do significant development work for upgrades ~$900M but launching at 2 per year development upgrades is starved.

But if you also consider Orion costs + DSG payloads and budget with this added to the total and the likely hood of all things SLS/Orion/GSE/DSG budget capped at no higher than $3.5M, that $900M margin disappears quickly in order to develop and build the DSG elements and for making improvements to the SLS/Orion and after EM-2 shouldering the complete cost of the SM manufacture for Orion.

The difficulties have only just begun for the program if the costs have grown for the basic incremental costs. Initially SLS's incremental cost was supposed to be (less EUS) ~$300M but with just engines costing $55M each for total of $220M that figure may be difficult to reach! Which will starve payload (DSG) development and  ultimately SLS's purpose for being.

SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

EUS
4 RL-10's ($19M each) $76M
Tank Core $20
Avionics $25M (rad hard)
= $121M

SLS 1B = not less than $501M (NOTE this is a very optimistic estimate)

This also shows why NASA is looking at ways to cut incremental costs of the EUS by using a different cheaper engine. A pair of BE-3U's ($8M each, this actually is a high estimate and reality is likely to be lower) could save as much as $60M.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/22/2018 05:30 am
SLS 1B = not less than $501M (NOTE this is a very optimistic estimate)

For a production run of 22 vehicles, I got a price of $511M each using NASA cost models.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/22/2018 01:22 pm
SLS 1B = not less than $501M (NOTE this is a very optimistic estimate)

For a production run of 22 vehicles, I got a price of $511M each using NASA cost models.

Vehicle unit cost or full operational cost?  How many vehicles per year launched?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/22/2018 08:11 pm
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/22/2018 11:39 pm
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.

The original concept was to have a shared pad with commercial launcher(s). 
That seems to be on indefinite hold.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 01/23/2018 12:20 am
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.

because it would increase pad time.  integration off pad with the umbilical tower makes more sense like Atlas V and Falcon 9.  The upper stages and spacecraft need to be checked  out with the umbilicals.  Spacecraft need to be connected to GSE once attached to the rocket.
Shuttle umbilicals were at the tail.  LH2 vent was the only connection at the pad.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/23/2018 12:47 am
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

Where do you get $60M per SRB set?

The last big SRM production contract that ATK Thiokol was awarded (in 2002) was $2.4B for 70 SRM sets, or $34.3M each or $68.6M per set.

However that was for volume production of at least 5 sets per year, and the SLS is originally set up for no more than 1.5 launches per year. Plus the SLS SRM's are larger than the Shuttle SRM's.

Based on all of that I'd be surprised if a SLS SRM set cost less than $100M per set.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2018 12:54 am
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.

SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.

There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.

(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 01/23/2018 01:00 am
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

Where do you get $60M per SRB set?

The last big SRM production contract that ATK Thiokol was awarded (in 2002) was $2.4B for 70 SRM sets, or $34.3M each or $68.6M per set.

However that was for volume production of at least 5 sets per year, and the SLS is originally set up for no more than 1.5 launches per year. Plus the SLS SRM's are larger than the Shuttle SRM's.

Based on all of that I'd be surprised if a SLS SRM set cost less than $100M per set.

His model is assuming costs associated with high rate of SRM production but low rate of RS-25 production. All in all, you can call it a wash.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 01:04 am
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.

SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.

There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.

(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)

Getting Orion to a space station in low lunar orbit may also require a stretched upper stage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/23/2018 01:20 am
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.

SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.

There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.

(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)

Getting Orion to a space station in low lunar orbit may also require a stretched upper stage.
Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 02:07 am
Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.

Ion thrusters can keep a spacestation in low lunar orbit. It is a good place to store and refuel the lander between missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/23/2018 02:30 am
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

Where do you get $60M per SRB set?

The last big SRM production contract that ATK Thiokol was awarded (in 2002) was $2.4B for 70 SRM sets, or $34.3M each or $68.6M per set.

However that was for volume production of at least 5 sets per year, and the SLS is originally set up for no more than 1.5 launches per year. Plus the SLS SRM's are larger than the Shuttle SRM's.

Based on all of that I'd be surprised if a SLS SRM set cost less than $100M per set.

His model is assuming costs associated with high rate of SRM production but low rate of RS-25 production. All in all, you can call it a wash.

The term "high rate" when talking about the SLS as it stands today is more than one but less then two flight-sets per year.

And any costing exercise has to assume the same number of complete assemblies, otherwise the numbers being discussed/debated aren't meaningful.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 01/23/2018 06:38 am
For a production run of 22 vehicles, I got a price of $511M each using NASA cost models.
Vehicle unit cost or full operational cost?

Vehicle unit cost.

Quote
How many vehicles per year launched?

The model does not take that into account, but I would assume at least two vehicles per year.

]Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.

An LLO space station is not necessary. The station we want is on the Moon, not LLO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 01/23/2018 08:50 am
]Low lunar orbit isn't a very good place for a space station, tho.

An LLO space station is not necessary. The station we want is on the Moon, not LLO.

We get both. The LLO space station is used to build the lunar base. Landing the big heavy bits from LEO without refuelling is difficult.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 12:02 pm
Right, and the assembled whole is always more than all the pieces separately.

SLS is simply expensive. Just the hardware is expensive.

There's a way around this: Make SLS reusable. Flyback boosters AND the core. I'm aware of one such recent proposal, but it went nowhere, not even a pre-phase-A study.

(To make this feasible, it may be necessary to stretch the upper stage.)

If you want a reusable rocket, take out a blank sheet of paper and design one. 
It will look nothing like SLS with reusable bits.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/23/2018 12:18 pm
Flyback core? No - not that and have maximum payload delivery. I would agree that in a perfect world; the boosters would be flyback LOX/Hydrocarbon, the corestage would have 5 and not 4 RS-25's and the upper stage would have stronger engines and a slightly higher propellant load.

But that's not what we're getting. For better or worse, SLS is not going to be changing much.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 01/23/2018 12:18 pm
If you want a reusable rocket, take out a blank sheet of paper and design one. 
It will look nothing like SLS with reusable bits.
Unless you're congress.
I just had the nightmare that the response to increasing commercial competition on SLS would be to try.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 01/23/2018 01:40 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year. The R&D cost would make it more expensive than an expendable rocket. How many boosters and cores will be lost in testing? Could have used those for missions.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 02:48 pm
Changing direction so completely also doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 01/23/2018 03:46 pm

Between FH, NG, NA, and BFR, US industry already has one reusable heavy lifter near first launch, another in development, and two larger ones in design, split between two competitors.  There's little technical or programmatic need for the government to pursue a fifth heavy lifter, reusable or otherwise.

NASA's launch development effort needs to be redirected to be more rational and less redundant, not even more redundant and irrational than it already is.
 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/23/2018 04:33 pm
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

I forgot to check your estimate on the Tank Core, and that is way off too. As a point of reference, here is what NASA had negotiated as prices for the Shuttle ET & SRM's near the end of the program:

External Tank (ET): last contract - $2.94B for 17 units = $173M/ea
Solid Rocket Motors (SRM): last contract - $2.4B for 35 refurbished flight sets = $69M/set

That totals to $241.5M for each Shuttle flight, where you are estimating $135M for each SLS flight for the same hardware elements. I think you are off by a significant amount.

As for the RS-25, though NASA is using existing engines for the first four flights, it has already awarded a $1.16B pre-production contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne that produces no flight units, but prepares AR to produce flight units. Assuming the SLS flies at least nine times (4 w/existing engines, 5/new engines), that would mean this contract alone would account for $55M of engine cost, and that doesn't count the cost of producing the new engines themselves (which would be a separate contract).

Costs do drop over time as more units are produced, but there are limits to how much they can drop.

For instance, for the SLS core the cost of the aluminum will not drop below the current market price because the amount of aluminum the SLS uses is not very significant compared to the total market need, so volume purchasing won't matter. And pretty much everything on the SLS is low-volume production, meaning except for the core units that everything else will be produced on production lines that will only run intermittently, which doesn't allow for much cost reduction - even if production is doubled.

But just updating the ET and SRM costs to reflect a number I think is more realistic, I come up with:

SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($50M each) $100M
Tank Core $200M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $545M

And that would just be the piece-part costs, not the final assembled cost. YMMV
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 01/23/2018 04:54 pm
So was wondering why SLS kept the clean-pad design of the Ares I ML and tower vs moving the FSS to the Pad surface like Shuttle. The clean pad made sense for Ares as you had two separate LVs, but with SLS after EM-1/only Block 1A flight the vehicle should have a fixed height for umbilicals. By removing the Tower from the ML you free up a lot of space and most importantly weight on it.

because it would increase pad time.  integration off pad with the umbilical tower makes more sense like Atlas V and Falcon 9.  The upper stages and spacecraft need to be checked  out with the umbilicals.  Spacecraft need to be connected to GSE once attached to the rocket.
Shuttle umbilicals were at the tail.  LH2 vent was the only connection at the pad.

Thank you for the informed feedback Jim.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/23/2018 08:28 pm
SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($30M each) $60M
Tank Core $75M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $380M

I forgot to check your estimate on the Tank Core, and that is way off too. As a point of reference, here is what NASA had negotiated as prices for the Shuttle ET & SRM's near the end of the program:

External Tank (ET): last contract - $2.94B for 17 units = $173M/ea
Solid Rocket Motors (SRM): last contract - $2.4B for 35 refurbished flight sets = $69M/set

That totals to $241.5M for each Shuttle flight, where you are estimating $135M for each SLS flight for the same hardware elements. I think you are off by a significant amount.

As for the RS-25, though NASA is using existing engines for the first four flights, it has already awarded a $1.16B pre-production contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne that produces no flight units, but prepares AR to produce flight units. Assuming the SLS flies at least nine times (4 w/existing engines, 5/new engines), that would mean this contract alone would account for $55M of engine cost, and that doesn't count the cost of producing the new engines themselves (which would be a separate contract).

Costs do drop over time as more units are produced, but there are limits to how much they can drop.

For instance, for the SLS core the cost of the aluminum will not drop below the current market price because the amount of aluminum the SLS uses is not very significant compared to the total market need, so volume purchasing won't matter. And pretty much everything on the SLS is low-volume production, meaning except for the core units that everything else will be produced on production lines that will only run intermittently, which doesn't allow for much cost reduction - even if production is doubled.

But just updating the ET and SRM costs to reflect a number I think is more realistic, I come up with:

SLS
4 RS-25's ($55M each) $220M
2 SRB's ($50M each) $100M
Tank Core $200M
Avionics $25M (rad hard, commonality with EUS)
= $545M

And that would just be the piece-part costs, not the final assembled cost. YMMV
Ok my intent was what was the lowest possible current estimate with the realization that reality would be a larger number. Then for SLS 1B add the costs for the EUS of not less than $120. But if the SLS tank is $200M vs my $75M then the EUS tank would be another $20M for $40M vs the one in the $120M estimate of $20M. So the new number would be $140M for EUS added to the $545 of the basic SLS gives a cost for manufacture of the SLS 1B of $665M.

Add to that the $800M/year for the operations and maintenance contract.

This gives the new budgets for the two cases of:
1 launch per year > $1.465B
2 launches per year > $2.13B

If the $800M is funded as a seperate line and then a max cap for operations and development of SLS of $1.5B that is $1.33B for the manufacture for 2 launches per year leaving only $170M for costs margins or some development upgrades work.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/23/2018 09:23 pm
Orion atop that vehicle would be estimated at approximately a billion each ($972M per reference below, p31).

Assume both missions include Orion (other payloads, if ever funded, won't be cheaper), so baseline is:
1 launch per year > $2.465B
2 launches per year > $3.13B
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/23/2018 11:33 pm
Orion atop that vehicle would be estimated at approximately a billion each ($972M per reference below, p31).

Assume both missions include Orion (other payloads, if ever funded, won't be cheaper), so baseline is:
1 launch per year > $2.465B
2 launches per year > $3.13B
2 Launches per year > $4.13B

(2 Orion's)

A BTW is that the max Congress may be willing to spend is probably $3.5B total per year. So funding 2 launches per year is questionable. NOTE $3.5B is 18% of NASA's budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/24/2018 01:34 am
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/24/2018 01:53 am
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.

An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/24/2018 01:55 am
What would be cool is to have 6m boosters based on F9 for say 17 Merlin engines with another ring of 8 around the original 8 (A F17 booster).  These could replace the solids and be able to land for reuse.  Then as someone said, add another RS-25 to the core for a 5 engine core.  Then have an upper stage with say 4 BE-3U's.  I think this could get you 150-175 tons to LEO and using one BE-3U's could get a fairly large deep space probe going.  Boosters would be reusable not just dumped in the ocean. 

Of course rockets aren't Lego's, but, this could be some future upgrade. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 01/24/2018 02:00 am
Orion atop that vehicle would be estimated at approximately a billion each ($972M per reference below, p31).

Assume both missions include Orion (other payloads, if ever funded, won't be cheaper), so baseline is:
1 launch per year > $2.465B
2 launches per year > $3.13B
With fully expendable Falcon Heavy now claimed to have 63 tons to LEO capability; that mission architecture could be improved.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Cheapchips on 01/24/2018 11:53 am
As a cost saving, I don't know at what point SLS could switch to carbon tanks. It would save a good % of that £200m structure cost.

NASA/Boeing finished successful testing of a 5.5m hydrogen tank under flight loads in 2016.  The research was specifically aimed at lowering costs and improving payloads of SLS class rockets. The production techniques should scale fairly easily to 8.4 meters.

It'll probably be another bit of great work from NASA & partners than doesn't see active service.  :-\

If you are going to have a disposable rocket, tanks manufactured mostly by a robot would seem the perfect way to go.

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/24/2018 01:20 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.

An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.

Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.

Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 01/24/2018 02:04 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.

An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.

Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.

Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.

How much time and money would that redesign take? Not feasible.

Best thing to do would be to continue with SLS as is. If SpaceX, Blue, and others fail to get their giant rockets flying by 2025, NASA will have SLS. If a cheaper commercial option it comes along, then it will be time to cancel SLS.

IMO, the best idea so far is to modify SLS to build an upper stage that can be refueled in LEO. Then massive payloads can be sent BEO. Might give SLS something to do worth its high cost.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 01/24/2018 02:04 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.

An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.

Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.

Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
Small problem in using 7m diameter NG as boosters. The pad can only handle a vehicle that is 21m wide. 2 7m wide NG boosters and the 8.4m core is 22.4m. It will not fit.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 01/24/2018 02:30 pm
So 6m wide side boosters could fit, barely. 

How many Merlins could fit a 6m wide booster? 
Then is the thrust enough to meet or exceed the solids capabilities? 
Would NASA help pay for such a booster? 
Would or could they make the core to handle either 4 or 5 engines depending on payload? 
Would a 500 lb thrust AR-1 booster be able to land to not be dependent on SpaceX?
Would a BE-4 or Raptor based booster be better for reuse? 

I know SLS hasn't flown yet, and because of this, it may be cancelled if New Glenn gets flying, Vulcan gets flying, and FH gets flying.  Lot of heavier payloads could be assembled in orbit and get a moon centric program going without SLS at a lower cost.  To me making SLS work at a lower cost would mean ditching the solids and using reusable boosters, or eventually going with a 10-12m reusable booster. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 01/24/2018 04:39 pm
All these schemes ignore you would need a new MLP to mount the booster along with new swing arms and launch pad tankage.

Very likely it would require the VAB internal structures and doors to be redesigned, unless these LRBs were the same size and shape as the current SRBs and the new SLS took up the same envelope as the old SLS.  New LRBs would require the core to be redesigned to accept the new boosters.

This would be hideously expensive and delay any meaningful follow on missions (a not very precise unit of measure) for a very long time.

As big a fan boy of boosters [as I am] (in sometimes outlandish configurations  - see my Saturn V models elsewhere on the thread) [I find ]this is a somewhat silly and unrealistic discussion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/24/2018 05:16 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance. So an SLS 1B at 110mt LEO payload as expendable (being generous) would become a 66-77mt LEO payload. So it's complete reason for being disappears just to be able to have some reusability of the S1 stages.

An SLS 2 as reusable would be 80-90mt. So the level of redesign to get back to a performance level of 100mt would require the SLS to be something completely different.

Partially reusable SLS would need liquid boosters that can land downrange, so the payload hit depends mostly on the specs of those boosters. Using New Glenn boosters as LRBs would greatly increase the payload at the same time as allowing recovery. I estimate 136 t to LEO and 53 t to TLI, both with EUS.

Without a larger upper stage than EUS I don't think there is any hope of recovering the core stage, but bigger boosters would allow a couple of RS-25s to be removed (saving ~$114M per flight) while still having much greater payload than SLS 1B.
Small problem in using 7m diameter NG as boosters. The pad can only handle a vehicle that is 21m wide. 2 7m wide NG boosters and the 8.4m core is 22.4m. It will not fit.

SpaceGhost1962 looked at triple 8.4 m setups and thought they were feasible. I'm not sure what pad changes they would entail, perhaps he can elaborate.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 01/24/2018 10:14 pm
As a cost saving, I don't know at what point SLS could switch to carbon tanks.

Likely never, since the production line is set up for building using aluminum.

Quote
It would save a good % of that £200m structure cost.

Maybe, but maybe not. Keep in mind that the SLS was designed to use aluminum, so building an SLS out of carbon fiber (or anything other than aluminum) means that you're essentially designing a brand new rocket. That would cost many $Billions and take many years.

Quote
NASA/Boeing finished successful testing of a 5.5m hydrogen tank under flight loads in 2016.

IIRC NASA did a test of building the Orion spacecraft frame out of carbon fiber, and found that there wasn't any real different in cost or weight, so they stuck with aluminum. If such a trade study were done for the SLS the same could be found (but such a study will never be done).

Quote
The research was specifically aimed at lowering costs and improving payloads of SLS class rockets. The production techniques should scale fairly easily to 8.4 meters.

Not sure we know what the Blue Origin New Glenn will be built out of, but we already know the SpaceX BFR & BFS will be built out of carbon fiber. But they are being designed from the start to use those materials.

Quote
It'll probably be another bit of great work from NASA & partners than doesn't see active service.  :-\

Sometimes R&D does not result in an intended use, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a successful experiment. Sometimes understanding why something is not worth pursuing is as good as understanding that it should be pursued.

Quote
If you are going to have a disposable rocket, tanks manufactured mostly by a robot would seem the perfect way to go.

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts

Actually the current tank manufacturing process is already automated. Read more about it on the wonderful link below...  ;)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/sls-core-stage-recovering-weld-pin-change/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 01/25/2018 02:27 am
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance....
...this isn't accurate. The core has a bunch of extra performance, and this would be done concurrently with upgrading the flyback boosters.

Additionally, being able to fly a good 5-10 times per year would make up for a minor loss in performance.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 01/25/2018 08:01 pm
A reusable system doesn't make economic sense if it only flies once or twice per year...
...you've got that backwards. The point of the reusable system would be so you can afford to fly more than once or twice a year.

The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
But you loose 30-40% of performance....
...this isn't accurate. The core has a bunch of extra performance, and this would be done concurrently with upgrading the flyback boosters.

Additionally, being able to fly a good 5-10 times per year would make up for a minor loss in performance.

Availability around 2030-2035... price tag, gazillions.
It would have to fly twice daily to make up for the costs by then.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 01/25/2018 08:10 pm
As a cost saving, I don't know at what point SLS could switch to carbon tanks.

Likely never, since the production line is set up for building using aluminum.

Quote
It would save a good % of that £200m structure cost.

Maybe, but maybe not. Keep in mind that the SLS was designed to use aluminum, so building an SLS out of carbon fiber (or anything other than aluminum) means that you're essentially designing a brand new rocket. That would cost many $Billions and take many years.

Quote
NASA/Boeing finished successful testing of a 5.5m hydrogen tank under flight loads in 2016.

IIRC NASA did a test of building the Orion spacecraft frame out of carbon fiber, and found that there wasn't any real different in cost or weight, so they stuck with aluminum. If such a trade study were done for the SLS the same could be found (but such a study will never be done).

Quote
The research was specifically aimed at lowering costs and improving payloads of SLS class rockets. The production techniques should scale fairly easily to 8.4 meters.

Not sure we know what the Blue Origin New Glenn will be built out of, but we already know the SpaceX BFR & BFS will be built out of carbon fiber. But they are being designed from the start to use those materials.

Quote
It'll probably be another bit of great work from NASA & partners than doesn't see active service.  :-\

Sometimes R&D does not result in an intended use, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a successful experiment. Sometimes understanding why something is not worth pursuing is as good as understanding that it should be pursued.

Quote
If you are going to have a disposable rocket, tanks manufactured mostly by a robot would seem the perfect way to go.

https://www.compositesworld.com/articles/nasaboeing-composite-launch-vehicle-fuel-tank-scores-firsts

Actually the current tank manufacturing process is already automated. Read more about it on the wonderful link below...  ;)

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/05/sls-core-stage-recovering-weld-pin-change/

Blue is doing friction stir welding in their New Glenn plant, so the main tanks are probably Al or Al-Li alloy like Falcon and SLS. They are also doing auto CFRP layup, likely for interstages and fairings like many other vehicles.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 02/13/2018 06:33 pm
EM-1 delayed until 2020.

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/963172689358868480
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 02/14/2018 12:08 am
Inside SLS: Outfitting The World’s Most Powerful Rocket


NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
Published on Feb 13, 2018


Find out why NASA’s new deep-space rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS) is more than just big and beautiful. For the world’s most powerful rocket, it takes a lot of “guts.” Engineers have built all the giant structures that will be assembled to form the first SLS rocket, and now they are busy installing and outfitting the rocket’s insides with sensors, cables and other equipment.  The rocket’s insides including its incredible flight computers and batteries will ensure SLS can do the job of sending the Orion spacecraft out beyond the Moon farther than any human-rated space vehicle as ever ventured. Learn how the SLS core stage components are being outfitted for the first SLS mission, Exploration Mission-1.

https://youtu.be/RO2onNNbovA?t=001

https://youtu.be/RO2onNNbovA
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 02/14/2018 01:18 am
Inside SLS: Outfitting The World’s Most Powerful Rocket

$100000 fastners? That's where the money's been going!
Thanks.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: joek on 02/14/2018 02:27 am
$100000 fastners? That's where the money's been going!

No, 100,000 fasteners.  But you knew that, didn't you?  Let's  give it a break please.  Plenty of things to complain about SLS; that's not one of them.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ArbitraryConstant on 02/14/2018 06:20 am
The idea was to do something like this during a later refresh of the SLS design, i.e. along with the proposed flyback boosters.

And likely the core would land down-range.

It costs like a billion dollars to build an SLS. It may make sense to add some auxiliary engines, grid fins, and legs to enable down-range landing and reuse. (Would also need to change the insulation. But the engines and thrust structure and hydraulics, etc, could remain the same.)
I think this is what AncientU was trying to get at when suggesting a clean sheet, because there's fewer steps from a clean sheet to an RLV than from SLS to an RLV. There simply isn't any way to broach any of the changes or assumptions necessary for what you describe without creating a situation where it cascades into other modifications that make sense once you grant the initial mod, and pretty soon you end up with something completely unrecognizable.

Let's try this thought experiment using implications from what you've suggested.

* flyback boosters
* so the boosters need to be liquids
* hydrocarbon is needed for sufficient thrust, engine can be AR-1 or BE-4
* but if the core lands downrange it needs engines that can air start which RS-25 can't, RS-68 can't handle the thermas, so we add BE-3
* except now this thing has three different first stage engines and two different fuels
* air start is required for flyback so RS-25 is eliminated
* so now the core either gets 30-40 BE-3's or switches to hydrocarbon and uses AR-1/BE-4
* wait a minute, if we switch the core to hydrocarbon we don't even need boosters anymore

See? You can't do it. As soon as you grant even the most minimal assumptions necessary for SLS reusability, the entire thing converges on a BFR/NA single stick hydrocarbon design and it is no longer recognizable as SLS anymore. Which would be fine except the SLS isn't a political reality if it isn't the SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/14/2018 06:34 am
Landing the SLS corestage is a no go. Flyback boosters are feasible and desirable and would go a long way towards cutting costs. But the up front development costs of Flyback boosters would be steep. ATK reckons they could deliver the 'Dark Knights' Super Solid Boosters for cheaper than the current 5 segment SRBs. I'd believe it when I see it.

If this monster must be expendable - make the payload worth the expense of ditching the hardware. It's been calculated by smart people - one of them on this website - that uprating the Corestage to 5x RS-25 engines, plus the Dark Knights and higher thrust engines on the Exploration upper stage would push this booster's capability to a fair bit more than 120 metric tons into Low Earth Orbit. If this must be a 'Pork Rocket' - please make it a strong and lean porker. I mean nothing pejorative about that...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Refleks on 02/14/2018 07:43 am
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was.   This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.

I do realize NASA is going the direction of expending the RS25s, and eventually opting for expendable new-builds, and my question is, what is the rationale behind this versus a return vehicle?  The RS25s are high performance and complex,  it's hard to believe the cost benefit analysis suggests that expendable versions with the same performance would be that much cheaper (unless they're opting for lower-performance / less complex expendable engines)

Since the STS system was capable of lifting ~110 tons to LEO, the resulting vehicle should still be a 100t class lifter even with the engine return glider.

Another question I've always wondered is, would it be feasible for SLS to incorporate four Falcon 9 type boosters in a configuration similar to Energia (in lieu of two higher thrust SRBs)?  How about four SRBs, if it's not man rated?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/14/2018 02:21 pm
I do realize NASA is going the direction of expending the RS25s, and eventually opting for expendable new-builds, and my question is, what is the rationale behind this versus a return vehicle?

The short answer is that the concept and design for the SLS was not entirely up to NASA. The SLS was created out of the cancellation of the Constellation program, where Congress designated that the SLS should take over the work already started for Ares I/V, plus try and utilize parts of the soon-to-end Shuttle program.

So the requirements that NASA was given did not include reusability, nor any cost goals that might have led to the use of certain technologies or techniques. Here is the law Congress wrote that created the SLS:

Quote
SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.
(a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that NASA develop a Space Launch System as a follow- on to the Space Shuttle that can access cis-lunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit in order to enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop this increasingly strategic region.
(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac- ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.
(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
(C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—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 appro- priations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and devel- oped, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow- on Space Launch System.
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.

And without new requirements given to NASA, there is no need to make changes at this point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 02/14/2018 03:00 pm
I saw on YouTube where someone figured using 4 F9's on the core and got I think about 130-150 tons to LEO.  However, a lot of infrastructure would have to be reworked to do this.  It would be cheaper to operate than the solids, and partly reusable.  Don't know how many billions would be needed to rework the infrastructure to handle this.  The VAB, the transporter, and even the flame trenches.  The core would also have to be reworked, thus basically a new rocket again.

I thought it was a good idea as two F9's could be used for lighter payloads and 4 for heavier payloads. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/14/2018 08:21 pm
I saw on YouTube where someone figured using 4 F9's on the core and got I think about 130-150 tons to LEO.

Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher, the only currently forecasted use for the SLS and Orion at this point is the Deep Space Gateway. And I don't think that dearth of payloads and missions is because the SLS isn't big enough, or we haven't spent enough money on it yet.

So while thinking up costly ways to mutate the SLS may be fun, it really belongs in realm of fantasy - or for NSF, the "Advanced Concepts" section.

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/14/2018 10:06 pm
With sadness; I'd say we'll never see liquid boosters for SLS. The Dark Knights solids should present no major challenges and money for fancy boosters would be better spent on payloads or optimizing the upper stage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Hog on 02/16/2018 06:11 pm
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was.   This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.

I do realize NASA is going the direction of expending the RS25s, and eventually opting for expendable new-builds, and my question is, what is the rationale behind this versus a return vehicle?  The RS25s are high performance and complex,  it's hard to believe the cost benefit analysis suggests that expendable versions with the same performance would be that much cheaper (unless they're opting for lower-performance / less complex expendable engines)

Since the STS system was capable of lifting ~110 tons to LEO, the resulting vehicle should still be a 100t class lifter even with the engine return glider.

Another question I've always wondered is, would it be feasible for SLS to incorporate four Falcon 9 type boosters in a configuration similar to Energia (in lieu of two higher thrust SRBs)?  How about four SRBs, if it's not man rated?
The expendable RS-25s will actually be of higher RPL than the:
16 "HERITAGE" (RS-25 Block II) 104.5% rpl/2188kn/491,881lbs. thrust with a service life of 55 starts/27,000 seconds and ISP of 450.2secs, which have now been converted to:
16-"ADAPTATION RS-25" using 109%rpl/2281kn/512,789lbs. thrust good for 6 starts/2500 seconds of runtime with an ISP of 450.7 secs
leading to the future
"RESTART RS25" 111%rpl/2321kn/521,782 lbs. thrust for 4 starts/1700 seconds of runtime with an ISP of 450.8 secs  of which the low hanging fruit for cost reductions were chosen and are now being hotfired culminating in a 33% reduction in RS25 cost.

With direction towards "RS25 BLOCK IV" upgrade plan to enact some of the "higher risk, higher payoff" cost reduction strategies that were deferred from the "RESTART RS25" initiative", with hotfire testing targets of 115%rpl(which would be approx. 2404kn/540,441lbs. thrust vac. using RESTART numbers)
I am thinking that the data gained from the RS25 Block-III SSME Upgrade Project from the turn of the century, isn't being lost.  There are many aspects of it that are being mirrored in the current "RESTART RS25" effort, the major difference is of course reusability. The higher RPLs and safe affordable-REUSEABLE-SSME did NOT mix.(erosion)  Block-II SSME allowed 111%rpl for Contingency Aborts ONLY(do or die as Mr Hale says), intact Aborts allowed for 109%.. A 120% Power Level(PL) is mentioned with nominal operation at 104.5% RPL.  (120%rpm would be 2509kn/564,046lbs. thrust vac.)

 We'll see what the reduced "deep" throttling (down to 80%) and disposable requirements allow for future "Block IV" testing.


I have included the 2000 Block III SSME Upgrade Project Overview.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 02/17/2018 02:22 am
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was.   This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.

The engines are housed in a side mounted pod, but I don't think it was ever planned to be recovered and reused. In fact I don't think any Shuttle Derived Heavylift has plans for engine reuse, probably because their envisioned flight rate is too low.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/17/2018 03:14 am
If you google "Ares Mars Direct" you get a concept from the early 90's of a heavy lifter based on the STS, foreshadowing the more recent Ares V / SLS systems, but with one main difference: the RS25's are housed on a lifting body and mounted on the side of the fuel tank similar to how the Shuttle was.   This would allow the excellent RS25s to be returned for reuse, saving money.

The engines are housed in a side mounted pod, but I don't think it was ever planned to be recovered and reused. In fact I don't think any Shuttle Derived Heavylift has plans for engine reuse, probably because their envisioned flight rate is too low.
There were concepts for recovering the side pod.


EDIT: from this NASA Spaceflight article:
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/
Quote
“A notional extensibility approach for operational vehicles using this hybrid concept is shown (in the graphic – left). The advantages include reducing the number of changes to the launch pad and also providing for easier detachment of the propulsion modules when used in conjunction with the recovery module concept presented (see reference in Sidemount overview).”
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/19/2018 05:58 am
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....

By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 02/19/2018 06:55 am
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....

By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?

The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 02/22/2018 06:34 am
By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?

The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.

I think that's quite possible, but it's nonetheless significant that the Trump administration takes the view that flying Europa Clipper on SLS 1) costs more than it's worth, and 2) causes scheduling problems, given SLS's very low production rate (left unmentioned, however, is the questionable wisdom of entrusting an extremely expensive, one-of-a-kind payload to EUS on its very first flight).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jabe on 02/24/2018 12:31 am
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)
sort of relevant...yikes if true..
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
jb
not a good thing...
jb
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/24/2018 03:41 am
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)
sort of relevant...yikes if true..
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
jb
not a good thing...
jb
I'm thinking there is a good chance that this is now going to be what pushes EM-1 into 2021 or later.  Losing core people in software in my experience is devastating.  On large complex projects like this it takes a while to get new people up to speed.  Just wait for the next schedule delays to be announced.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cebri on 02/24/2018 08:54 am
And let's not forget this http://nasawatch.com/archives/2017/12/this-is-how-nas-1.html

Quote
A letter was sent to NASA MSFC management last week by Ben Samouha, a 30+ year veteran in software safety whose career reaches back to the Challenger era. As has been noted previously on NASAWatch there has been a significant amount of internal controversy over safety and software being developed for SLS. Clearly these safety issues remain. People are quitting instead of trying to fight the system, or in some cases, they leave after having been forced out for speaking up about their concerns. As Samouha notes:

"These people have been for a long time (and still are) continuously ignoring or not properly addressing FSW Safety related observations and findings and unethically do not disclose issues to the upper management in order to show a virtual progress in order to keep their jobs. Anyone with years of experience and integrity to Safety can see through these imposters just like I did."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 02/24/2018 03:22 pm
Other than the Europa mission, which could fly on an existing launcher....

By the way, is everyone here aware that the administration's proposed FY 2019 NASA budget recommends moving Europa Clipper from SLS to a commercial launch vehicle (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27871.msg1788485#msg1788485)?

The president's budget proposal is DOA. When US Congress is finished with it ISS will stay in orbit until (at least) 2028 and Europa Clipper will still be assigned to launch on SLS.

This budget won't determine how long ISS stays. And a launch for Europa Clipper by 2025 with a 7 year cruise puts reaching Europa at 2032. John Culberson would be 76 or dead. I don't think he is going to like this.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/24/2018 05:28 pm
got into a side discussion about this in another thread (my bad)
sort of relevant...yikes if true..
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/967175843356270592)
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."
jb
not a good thing...
jb
I'm thinking there is a good chance that this is now going to be what pushes EM-1 into 2021 or later.  Losing core people in software in my experience is devastating.  On large complex projects like this it takes a while to get new people up to speed.  Just wait for the next schedule delays to be announced.

What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)?  Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?
This will make a huge difference in how readily available are qualified programmers and how professionally rewarding/attractive are these positions.  Another recruitment factor is where these positions are located?  Alabama?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2018 12:51 pm

What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)?  Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?


Orion uses 787 type avionics.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/26/2018 04:29 pm

What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)?  Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?


Orion uses 787 type avionics.

Quote
The Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phone
Running 12-year-old processors*, next-gen spaceship’s tech is built for reliability, not to be state-of-the-art
* 15-year-old now

Quote
The computers are running IBM's PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, which were first launched in 2002.

NASA fit two of the processors into each flight computer, setting them up to run identical software and monitor each other. If the processors don't do the exact same thing, the system will stop giving commands and reset itself.

"The processors are obsolete already but they have the property of just getting upset by radiation, instead of being permanently damaged," said Lemke, noting that NASA has been using the processors for more than 10 years. "You could do it with something newer, but all the engineering that would go into making it work right would make it a lot more expensive for us to build it."
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2855604/the-orion-spacecraft-is-no-smarter-than-your-phone.html


Still cannot find anything about SLS computers, but software articles are available:

Article on SLS software/system from two years ago:
Quote
NASA launch system software upgrade now 77% over budget
Quote
As it builds the Space Launch System rocket, NASA is updating this Spaceport Command and Control System software for the Kennedy Space Center. However, a new report by the space agency's inspector general, Paul Martin, finds this decade-long software development effort has fallen behind schedule and is on track to exceed its initial budget of $117.3 million by 77 percent, with cost estimates now increased to $207.4 million. Moreover, the inspector general criticized NASA for not adopting cheaper, commercially available launch software already used by Orbital ATK and SpaceX to launch their rockets.

To develop its new launch software, NASA has essentially kluged together a bunch of different software packages, Martin noted in his report. "The root of these issues largely results from NASA’s implementation of its June 2006 decision to integrate multiple products or, in some cases, parts of products rather than developing software in-house or buying an off-the-shelf product," the report states. "Writing computer code to 'glue' together disparate products has turned out to be more complex and expensive than anticipated. As of January 2016, Agency personnel had developed 2.5 million lines of 'glue-ware,' with almost two more years of development activity planned."
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/03/nasas-glue-ware-for-computer-launch-systems-over-budget-behind-schedule/

Note: It's been 'two more years' and they are nowhere near complete.

And this nicely sums up why they are having trouble finding software developers.  Also makes one wonder how they can rationalize that a NASA development project is 'safer' and not needing 'certification'... seem like they are taking the most hazardous and expensive ($300M for a rocket's software???????) route on the software/computing side.  Having all of this bureaucracy and 'oversight' appears to have created a monster.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/26/2018 05:31 pm
Some pics of the hardware and managers in charge:
Quote
Oh, the places they'll go with the Space Launch System computers NASA just displayed in Huntsville (photos) (video)
Quote
You've heard that there's more computing power in your smartphone than what NASA used in sending Apollo to the moon? Take a look at the computing power displayed at Marshall Space Flight Center Thursday and imagine where American astronauts might go with it on board.
http://blog.al.com/breaking/2014/01/nasa_shows_off_the_brains_of_i.html

Echo chamber.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 02/26/2018 08:42 pm
@AncientU.  I don't really get your point.  The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation.  The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/26/2018 09:03 pm
The PowerPC 750FX first came out in 2002. IBM and Motorola (Freescale) no longer make the civilian version.

The PowerPC 750FX was replaced by the PowerPC e500 which in turn has been replaced by the faster e5500. The radiation hard version is called the RAD5500.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/26/2018 09:47 pm
@AncientU.  I don't really get your point.  The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation.  The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.

SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers. 
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."

My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006.  They are hiring because everyone is quitting...  There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?

* Inspector General's word, not mine.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/26/2018 10:04 pm

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?


Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.

Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?

Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 02/26/2018 10:15 pm
@AncientU.  I don't really get your point.  The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation.  The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.

SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers. 
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."

My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006.  They are hiring because everyone is quitting...  There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?

* Inspector General's word, not mine.

You forget that all the SLS flight avionics are in the upper stage unlike more recent designs.

NASA is not going to find too many replacement software personnel. Non-standard kluged software for antiqued hardware means who ever NASA hires will have to be trained from scratch requiring more budget and time.

The fun part will be figuring out how well the software functions in a full up test.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/26/2018 10:25 pm
@AncientU.  I don't really get your point.  The name of the game for manned flight isn't necessarily computing power, but reliability and resistance to radiation.  The flight computer for Orion/SLS are well designed for this.

SLS software development is on the rocks and they're having a difficult time recruiting software developers. 
Quote
SLS Software Problems Continue
"....The SLS software team at MSFC is having great difficulty in hiring people to replace those who have quit. There is a lot of internal concern as a result of issues already raised with regard to SLS software safety to date that MSFC will literally have to go back to square one on software so as to verify it for use on human missions."

My point is that NASA is using old hardware and a kluged* up system of software, all being built in Alabama -- since 2006.  They are hiring because everyone is quitting...  There is no reason in the world that a sharp software developer would be professionally interested in this project.

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?

* Inspector General's word, not mine.

You forget that all the SLS flight avionics are in the upper stage unlike more recent designs.

NASA is not going to find too many replacement software personnel. None standard kluged software for antiqued hardware means who ever NASA hires will have to be trained from scratch requiring more budget and time.

The fun part will be figuring out how well the software functions in a full up test.

Good point on the upper stage.

They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper.  Rad harden in software like more recent designs.  Might find replacement software people easier, too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/26/2018 10:41 pm

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?


Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.

Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?

Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.

I have zero idea if the computer clock speed can handle the code/work load in steady state -- but there isn't much of that during a rocket launch.  The real issue is can the bugs ever be cleaned up?  Can the system be made to reset/reboot fast enough that it will be robust?  Can the old hardware do fast enough self-checking to be reliable? 
I know that whenever we use wrappers around old code, it's buggy as hell. 

Would like to see an independent team of professional software developers evaluating the original plans for the system, how much code was written vs how much was planned, how the system performs in upset conditions, etc.

It doesn't appear that the project can heal itself by continuing to do what hasn't worked so far.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 02/27/2018 11:59 am
Thanks!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 02/27/2018 03:02 pm
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper.  Rad harden in software like more recent designs.  Might find replacement software people easier, too.

This kills the program.

A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing.  Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 02/27/2018 05:10 pm
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper.  Rad harden in software like more recent designs.  Might find replacement software people easier, too.

This kills the program.

A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing.  Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.


Yes. The skill set is usually that of dual track high experienced personnel with EE and Software Engineering (includes extensive programming experience all the way down to assembler code) which currently are being offered high salaries by all the car companies doing self driving cars. The software for the cars is even more challenging than for a rocket. These highly capable people go where there is a high challenge not necessarily at much higher salaries. Plus these car software projects are likely to last decades vs 1 decade for the initial development with small fixes upgrades made by a very small team (< 1/4 of the development team size). Meaning the SLS software development is a "temporary job".

The other item is contending with all the conflicting government standards for software that make it difficult to write "tight" code. This creates "kludge" software more than anything else. Because the more exceptions handling added the more "kludges" are added to maintain execution speed. As more "kludges" are added more exption handling is added. At some point the software becomes so massive it is no longer debuggable or correctable by the programmers since it takes a very long time to discover what is causing the software failure in order to fix it. This is a exact example of a over-stressed environment for these high experienced personnel.

Look to the original software/hardware designers at not including all the possible inclusions the software would have to handle at the program start. Meaning no reuse of old software but clean sheet designs. Use of a modern RealTime-OS and modern high speed computers enable much faster and easier code development. The initial decisions to cuts costs by using existing software and hardware in the design is costing a lot more to patch in new software around hardware resource limitations (speed, memory, instruction set, thread switching [this is something that modern computer processors have worked on extensively to increase the effective execution speed], etc).

Again it is the cost cutting initial decisions that are ending costing more in time and money.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/27/2018 06:52 pm
They could probably start from scratch with off the shelf hardware and modern software and get done faster, better, cheaper.  Rad harden in software like more recent designs.  Might find replacement software people easier, too.

This kills the program.

A large part of the difficulty hiring people is that the overwhelming majority of software folks do not work in the field of high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing.  Computer Science programs around the country churn out web and app developers by the gross, but it's a totally different skill set.

You over estimate the height of the wall involved with doing 'high-reliability, real-time, hardware-interactive computing' relative to many/most of the sophisticated software apps out there.  Certainly there are tonnes of generic web and app developers just as there are lots of kitty videos on line... but there is serious scientific and technical work being done in many fields that use more sophisticated software than that needed for rocketry.  OldAtlasGuy points out one, autonomous vehicles, where a 'super-computer' (NVIDIA Drive PV 2 AI computer*) is typical of the core processor.  The new constellations that employ Tb data rates among a network of inter-communicating satellites is another frequently discussed here.
* https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/self-driving-cars/drive-px/

I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: SWGlassPit on 02/28/2018 03:08 pm
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.

In aerospace, you almost never want cutting edge.  You want reliability in unforgiving environments (radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes), with manageable power and thermal constraints.  New isn't necessarily good, and what folks use on the ground won't necessarily cut it in space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 02/28/2018 03:19 pm
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.

In aerospace, you almost never want cutting edge.  You want reliability in unforgiving environments (radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes), with manageable power and thermal constraints.  New isn't necessarily good, and what folks use on the ground won't necessarily cut it in space.

That's one paradigm, the one that bases so much faith in only using high TRL hardware.  Problem is, it gets you no where fast.
Look at the SLS software mess that has cost >$200M -- they are doing exactly what you are advocating -- and probably will be approaching $300M before SLS flies the very first time.   Is that what you are advocating for everyone?

Both Antares and Falcon are using off-the-shelf electronics and modern software as pointed out in the IG report upthread.  Both programs are flying regularly (50-60 combined flights without serious avionics issues since SLS software development began), and their combined development effort plus hardware (which costs virtually nothing) probably cost less than a year worth of the SLS effort.  The SLS 'program' has been running for 11-12 years and is in a ditch -- no where near complete.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Eric Hedman on 02/28/2018 09:44 pm
CNN's Great Big Story: How to build a rocket to Mars

https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639 (https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639)

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 02/28/2018 09:45 pm
CNN's Great Big Story: How to build a rocket to Mars

https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639 (https://www.greatbigstory.com/stories/courageous-boeing-branded?playall=1639)

Quote
This Great Big Story is a paid contribution by Boeing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 02/28/2018 11:00 pm
I believe that if your 2018 software can run on a 2002 processor, you are not anywhere near the cutting edge software-wise.

In aerospace, you almost never want cutting edge.  You want reliability in unforgiving environments (radiation, vacuum, temperature extremes), with manageable power and thermal constraints.  New isn't necessarily good, and what folks use on the ground won't necessarily cut it in space.

That's one paradigm, the one that bases so much faith in only using high TRL hardware.  Problem is, it gets you no where fast.
Look at the SLS software mess that has cost >$200M -- they are doing exactly what you are advocating -- and probably will be approaching $300M before SLS flies the very first time.   Is that what you are advocating for everyone?

Both Antares and Falcon are using off-the-shelf electronics and modern software as pointed out in the IG report upthread.  Both programs are flying regularly (50-60 combined flights without serious avionics issues since SLS software development began), and their combined development effort plus hardware (which costs virtually nothing) probably cost less than a year worth of the SLS effort.  The SLS 'program' has been running for 11-12 years and is in a ditch -- no where near complete.

If NASA wants to get a radiation hard RAD5500 processor and board to TRL 9 it could put one in a cubesat.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 03/01/2018 01:53 pm

What vintage of hardware/processors are they using on SLS (and Orion)?  Is the software state-of-the-art or generations old?


Orion uses 787 type avionics.

Quote
The Orion spacecraft is no smarter than your phone
Running 12-year-old processors*, next-gen spaceship’s tech is built for reliability, not to be state-of-the-art
* 15-year-old now

Quote
The computers are running IBM's PowerPC 750FX single-core processors, which were first launched in 2002.

NASA fit two of the processors into each flight computer, setting them up to run identical software and monitor each other. If the processors don't do the exact same thing, the system will stop giving commands and reset itself.

"The processors are obsolete already but they have the property of just getting upset by radiation, instead of being permanently damaged," said Lemke, noting that NASA has been using the processors for more than 10 years. "You could do it with something newer, but all the engineering that would go into making it work right would make it a lot more expensive for us to build it."
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2855604/the-orion-spacecraft-is-no-smarter-than-your-phone.html


Still doesn't change my point.    It is still 787 avionics.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ennisj on 03/01/2018 06:28 pm

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?


Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.

Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?

Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.

More lines of code means more bugs, both in the code itself and the interfaces between different modules. More time needed for testing, more time debugging, more complex testing programs and simulations that may have also have bugs. More "dead" code that "doesn't do anything" but hasn't been excised (see Ariane 5 flight 1).

It's not so much just the size, but the complexity (and size is a proxy for complexity).

Conway's Law is very applicable here: "organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." Or to put it another way: "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 03/07/2018 11:34 am
Safety panel warns of “bottleneck” of reviews for exploration and commercial crew vehicles

http://spacenews.com/safety-panel-warns-of-bottleneck-of-reviews-for-exploration-and-commercial-crew-vehicles/ (http://spacenews.com/safety-panel-warns-of-bottleneck-of-reviews-for-exploration-and-commercial-crew-vehicles/)

Quote from: Jeff Foust
The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP), meeting March 1 at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, didn’t note any new major safety-related problems involving the two commercial crew vehicles under development, Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner and SpaceX’s Crew Dragon, or NASA’s Space Launch System and Orion programs. However, members raised concerns about the fact that the simultaneous development of the vehicles could strain NASA’s ability to perform qualification and other safety reviews. That had the potential to create additional schedule pressure on those programs.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 03/07/2018 05:33 pm

The flight computer might be well designed for a Mars rover, but can 2.5 million lines of 'glue ware' code as of two years ago, plus all that has come since and remains to be written run successfully on it?  Can that software mess be reliable/bug free?  Can anyone justify a $300M software development program for a rocket (does it even need rad-hard electronics)?


Pardon the question, it's been a long time so I've done any coding but memory says that if the code is written properly, then the same computer (Mars rover flight computer) won't mind more lines of code. Unless, the processing speed is too slow to run the program quickly enough to do the job in the time window necessary.

Which prompts a question in my mind, are you saying the flight computer clock speed can't handle the work load?

Sorry, but my worry part of the brain is trying to understand.

More lines of code means more bugs, both in the code itself and the interfaces between different modules. More time needed for testing, more time debugging, more complex testing programs and simulations that may have also have bugs. More "dead" code that "doesn't do anything" but hasn't been excised (see Ariane 5 flight 1).

It's not so much just the size, but the complexity (and size is a proxy for complexity).

Conway's Law is very applicable here: "organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." Or to put it another way: "If you have four groups working on a compiler, you'll get a 4-pass compiler."

Prescient.
Scary.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 03/22/2018 04:06 am
It has apparently been decided that going to europa using SLS in 2025 or before would be nice.
In addition to the 2022 mission.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-budget-to-soar-over-20-billion-in-final-fy2018-appropriations/

It is mandated that both the 2022 and 2025 missions fly on SLS. (Orbital mechanics says July 2022, and September 2025 ish)
What does this do to EM-3/4?

(assuming for the moment things continue this way)
Are EM3/4 far enough along to really have more than a very notional timescale?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 03/22/2018 04:17 am
It has apparently been decided that going to europa using SLS in 2025 or before would be nice.
In addition to the 2022 mission.
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-budget-to-soar-over-20-billion-in-final-fy2018-appropriations/

It is mandated that both the 2022 and 2025 missions fly on SLS.
What does this do to EM-3/4?
(assuming for the moment things continue this way)
Are EM3/4 far enough along to really have more than a very notional timescale?

If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 03/22/2018 05:11 am
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.

According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

Quote
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 Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.
Title: Draft Omnibus bill includes $350M for second ML
Post by: Mark S on 03/22/2018 12:57 pm
The proposed omnibus appropriations bill (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/DIV%20B%20CJS%20SOM-%20FY18-OMNI.OCR.pdf) (PDF) (also attached) sets a spending level of $20.7B for NASA in FY2018, and includes $350M for a second mobile launcher for SLS for the purpose of speeding up EM-2. I was under the impression that NASA was no longer considering asking for a second ML, so this is surprising. Apparently ASAP still has some pull in Congress, since they were the ones pushing for this.

This is great news (if it passes), but my guess is that there would still be a 3.5 year gap between EM-1 and EM-2. Reasons TBD. ;)

Cheers!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 03/22/2018 01:46 pm
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.

According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

Quote
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 Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.

Yes, they would and Congress is increasing NASA's budget so that is a possible. They're adding money for a second mobile launcher.

The proposed omnibus appropriations bill (http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20180319/DIV%20B%20CJS%20SOM-%20FY18-OMNI.OCR.pdf) (PDF) (also attached) sets a spending level of $20.7B for NASA in FY2018, and includes $350M for a second mobile launcher for SLS for the purpose of speeding up EM-2. I was under the impression that NASA was no longer considering asking for a second ML, so this is surprising. Apparently ASAP still has some pull in Congress, since they were the ones pushing for this.

This is great news (if it passes), but my guess is that there would still be a 3.5 year gap between EM-1 and EM-2. Reasons TBD. ;)

Cheers!

Yeah, it might even take longer to build the second ML than reconfiguring the current one. Government is like that.

Now I'm not a big SLS supporter, but if Congress is going to keep spending money on it we might as well get some use out of it. Imagine if the Shuttle program only had one launch per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 03/22/2018 03:50 pm
Now I'm not a big SLS supporter, but if Congress is going to keep spending money on it we might as well get some use out of it. Imagine if the Shuttle program only had one launch per year.

I agree, RonM. Two MLs are the minimum needed for any kind of realistic workflow and launch cadence.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/22/2018 07:30 pm

Quote
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 Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.

From the sounds of it, it would mean hiring a dedicated second shift.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rayleighscatter on 03/22/2018 07:47 pm
The bill also earmarks $300M for EUS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 03/22/2018 08:14 pm
Speaking of $300M for EUS, has any estimate of the its total development cost ever been made public?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 03/22/2018 08:49 pm
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.

According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

Quote
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 Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.

The upshot to that is that even at the 1 per year rate, by 2023 we could have 4 SLS core stages built and waiting for a payload to fly.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 03/22/2018 09:39 pm
If Congress will fund enough payloads for SLS they can get the flight rate up to two per year. No need to delay flights. They just cranked the NASA budget up more than 5%, maybe that will be the new baseline.

According to the outgoing Boeing SLS Program Manager in 2015 in a SpaceNews article (http://spacenews.com/an-interview-with-boeings-outgoing-sls-program-manager/):

Quote
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 Congress would have to increase SLS funding again in order to increase SLS production rates, and that would be in addition to the funding needed for the payloads.

The upshot to that is that even at the 1 per year rate, by 2023 we could have 4 SLS core stages built and waiting for a payload to fly.
Annual launch rate designed for 3 a year but 1 a quarter could be made possible with further offline processing and other changes. With currently only one SLS compatible High Bay the stacking and testing rate is constrained.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jebbo on 03/24/2018 06:28 am
Not sure if this is the best place, but Orbital just shared this on booster separation motors on  Facebook:

Quote
#DYK that it takes 16 Booster Separation Motors (BSM) firing simultaneously to separate the booster from NASA's Space Launch System? Each BSM provides more than 20,000 lbs of thrust over its 1-second burn.

post here (https://www.facebook.com/OrbitalATK/posts/10156060957040479)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/13/2018 10:57 pm
NASA is now likely to launch crew on SLS Block 1, possibly as early as 2022 on EM-2.  I actually see immense benefit of testing out Orion and crew in lunar orbit through EM-3 on Block 1 prior to commencing building of lunar gateway with Block 1b.  But with EUS delayed, this now affects Europa clipper.  Push it back several years find another LV?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/13/2018 11:32 pm
Nonsense. It's always been in plan to fly on commercial.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/14/2018 02:43 am
Europa Clipper should be able to fly on the most capable version of Vulcan/Centaur V. They might have to add a gravitational assist/flyby of one or two planets to get there :(  Or 1x completely expended Falcon Heavy with 1x gravity assist encounter.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 04/14/2018 01:46 pm
Vulcan ACES 564 can send 1300 kg direct to Jupiter.
VA564x2 with distributed lift can do 6400 kg, where SLS block 1 can only manage 4380 kg.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/14/2018 03:45 pm
Nonsense. It's always been in plan to fly on commercial.

Correct, as far as NASA was concerned. Unfortunately, US Congress mandated otherwise. Let's just hope that US Congress will not make yet another stupid decision to (again) force Europa Clipper to fly on SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 04/15/2018 06:38 pm
Vulcan ACES 564 can send 1300 kg direct to Jupiter.
VA564x2 with distributed lift can do 6400 kg, where SLS block 1 can only manage 4380 kg.
Meaning a Vulcan/ACES (564DL) [distributed launch] matches the capabilities for EC that would be provided by an SLS 1B.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/16/2018 09:45 am
For a probably lot lower cost, yes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/16/2018 12:57 pm
More and more we are seeing non-SLS solutions for missions that were one considered SLS-only for a lot less cost than SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/16/2018 01:14 pm
True, Chuck. When designing and building the Europa Clipper; how far into the process do they have to know what launcher is going to be used? Either the most powerful version of Vulcan or the Falcon Heavy might be able to get a good sized version of the design concept of it to Jupiter with only one gravitational flyby of Earth or Venus.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/16/2018 01:37 pm
True, Chuck. When designing and building the Europa Clipper; how far into the process do they have to know what launcher is going to be used? Either the most powerful version of Vulcan or the Falcon Heavy might be able to get a good sized version of the design concept of it to Jupiter with only one gravitational flyby of Earth or Venus.

It would need to be pretty early in the design because the instrumentation and structure is mass sensitive. How many gravity assists are needed and how much propellant needs to be included? There are also fairing considerations for the encapsulation geometry of the design. All these and more fall into the basic design of the probe which is settled early on in the process and they are pretty launcher specific. It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 04/16/2018 02:01 pm
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.
Unless there is sufficient extra capacity.
For example, TESS launching in a few hours on F9, that was initially going to launch on Pegasus.
If the new launcher is more capable in all ways, it's rather easier.

(https://i.imgur.com/PTNVOW4m.jpg)
It can lead to questions of if you're sure you put the satellite on the launcher.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/16/2018 05:03 pm
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.
Unless there is sufficient extra capacity.
For example, TESS launching in a few hours on F9, that was initially going to launch on Pegasus.
If the new launcher is more capable in all ways, it's rather easier.

(https://i.imgur.com/PTNVOW4m.jpg)
It can lead to questions of if you're sure you put the satellite on the launcher.

Except when moving from SLS to another LV, they would all be less capable. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 04/16/2018 05:27 pm
With the funds to build an SLS 1B-capable platform, NASA can continue to launch the SLS 1 block with the ICPS upper stage. And the launch cadence and EM-2 can be moved up accordingly, which means humans to BEO sooner.

However, the SLS 1 configuration won't allow co-manifesting of "gateway" components, so either a dedicated SLS flight, or more likely, a commercial rocket (NG, FH, BFR?) will be needed to launch the "gateway" (LOP-G) elements.

No less a NASA institution than Gerstenmaier has said that he likes all the options, NewSpace and Legacy Space LVs.  In that case, it doesn't matter if the EUS is delayed. In fact, logically, there would not any reason to build the EUS and SLS 1B at all IF the 50(?) mT DST could be delivered to lunar orbit in two or more segments via commercial LV.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 04/16/2018 05:33 pm
Except when moving from SLS to another LV, they would all be less capable.

Perhaps not in 2022.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/16/2018 06:06 pm
From the update thread:

Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)
Quote
This weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first  launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.

I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.

Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?

Is EUS going to be cancelled? Will "Block 1B" ever fly?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: zack on 04/16/2018 06:10 pm
I agree, does not sound too encouraging about the 1B.
Also, I find the the 2021 date interesting, last week Lightfoot said early 2020 (well end of 2019 + maybe a few months slip), now the people actually building the rocket say 2021...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rcoppola on 04/16/2018 06:18 pm
Wait a minute. But that's the whole point of the $350 Million for another MLT. To be able to continue to use ICPS with current Leaning Tower Of Ares while developing MLT-2 for the later EUS missions. Is everyone on the same page over there?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cppetrie on 04/16/2018 06:24 pm
From the update thread:

Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)
Quote
This weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first  launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.

I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.

Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?

Is EUS going to be cancelled? Will "Block 1B" ever fly?
It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So it’s far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cppetrie on 04/16/2018 06:28 pm
I agree, does not sound too encouraging about the 1B.
Also, I find the the 2021 date interesting, last week Lightfoot said early 2020 (well end of 2019 + maybe a few months slip), now the people actually building the rocket say 2021...
This doesn’t sound encouraging for Block D (all of the above)! What is Vegas showing as odds for which flies first: BFR, SLS, NG, or Vulcan?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/16/2018 06:30 pm
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch. Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.

But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/16/2018 06:56 pm
While I am glad to hear that EM-2 may be launched on Block I and therefore sooner I hope the rumor about crew being delayed to EM-5 isn't true.

Since the passage of funding to build the second ML I have been hoping that EM-2 (with crew) would be launched on a Block I. The three year gap between EM's 1&2 was not only frustrating from the standpoint of a space enthusiast but it was also bad for developing a steady and safe launch cadence for SLS. Now EM-2 can follow EM-1 more quickly and the crew will launch on a mission tested upper stage.

From the update thread:

Well this is surprising:
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992 (https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985926582501076992)
Quote
This weekend @NASA MSFC Center Director Todd May was talking to #NASA employees about new plans for the first 4 @NASA_SLS flights to be on identical rockets with @NASA_Orion but without crew. The first  launch would be in 2021. First launch with a crew would be EM-5 in 2015/2016.

I am assuming he meant to write 2025/2026. Not sure what to think about that.

Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?

Is EUS going to be cancelled? Will "Block 1B" ever fly?
It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So it’s far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!

This plan seems very ill-conceived. I can't believe they would launch 4 empty Orions. Maybe the idea is to launch pieces of the LOP-G on the 3 flights after EM-1?

A much better plan in my view is to launch as many pieces as possible on FH or another commercial rocket and have the SLS missions send crew to the LOP-G.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 04/16/2018 07:42 pm
Well I can tell you what I think about it: Not good news. No crew until the *FIFTH* SLS flight? Is Orion really that far behind schedule?

Two issues at play:

1) Human-rating ICPS is expensive and outside the budget.

2) SLS and Orion are relatively unreliable and unsafe.  For roughly equivalent missions, Loss of Crew projections for Orion/SLS are somewhat worse than Shuttle's LOC projections at end of life.  ASAP noted this in 2014, but the program has yet to grapple with it.

Plus, there are also the NASAWatch rumors about EUS software development requiring a complete reboot.

Wait a minute. But that's the whole point of the $350 Million for another MLT. To be able to continue to use ICPS with current Leaning Tower Of Ares while developing MLT-2 for the later EUS missions.

More than a second MLT is required to bring crewed launch back to the left.

This is the problem when Congress tries to buy fixes to large development programs that the White House didn't ask for.  Taxpayer money gets wasted on partial solutions that are useless and unintended effects that make the problem worse.

It says these missions will carry an empty Orion on the first four. So it’s far enough along to launch but not with people?!? What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times?

Flight reliability.  It's actually a little encouraging to see the agency want to flight test rather than rely solely on engineering and ground tests for flight safety, but...

Quote
And not a cheap one at that!

... the cost of NASA developments and builds usually precludes such flight testing.  At a run-rate of about $4.5 billion per year for SLS/Orion/GSDO and a launch rate of one per year, four SLS launches and Orion test flights will consume about $18 billion.

I suspect these test flights will be terminated once there is leadership at the agency or this or a future White House starts paying attention below the level of broad National Space Council policy pronouncements.  (If not before...)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/16/2018 07:57 pm
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch.

I was just thinking that if it were a horse, it would be shot to put it out of its misery.

Quote
Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.

But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.

Some time ago, in what I thought was quite a perceptive post, Blackjax pointed out (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=vu8ml85hh8vh2tfc5utkl4ig44&topic=35525.msg1252421#msg1252421) the organizational factors that would tend to keep SLS in perpetual development.  The same factors will be present in any large development project.  But I would submit that in SLS's case they dominate:  witness the fact that SLS was created by politicians without a particular mission, and each proposed mission has proved less durable than the SLS program, especially if you consider Ares V as simply pre-SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 04/16/2018 07:57 pm


Nonsense. It's always been in plan to fly on commercial.

Correct, as far as NASA was concerned. Unfortunately, US Congress mandated otherwise. Let's just hope that US Congress will not make yet another stupid decision to (again) force Europa Clipper to fly on SLS.

Flying Europa Clipper on SLS seems to be the deal between Culberson and Shelby: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 04/16/2018 07:59 pm
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch.

I was just thinking that if it were a horse, it would be shot to put it out of its misery.

Rumors like this seem like they are making the request...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 04/16/2018 08:02 pm
True, Chuck. When designing and building the Europa Clipper; how far into the process do they have to know what launcher is going to be used? Either the most powerful version of Vulcan or the Falcon Heavy might be able to get a good sized version of the design concept of it to Jupiter with only one gravitational flyby of Earth or Venus.
Read Eric Berger's latest piece: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/if-were-really-going-to-europa-nasa-needs-to-pick-a-rocket-soon/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/16/2018 09:20 pm
A response from PAO and Todd May

https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/985967329799495682

Quote
Per our earlier tweet about @NASA_SLS changes, @NASA PAO says "Todd May says this is not what’s being discussed for the first flights of SLS. He says he never said no crew on these flights."   That said @NASAWatch stands by its earlier tweet.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/16/2018 09:27 pm
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation. There can't be anyone, anywhere that still believes this is still a functioning program. Jeff's at the Space Symposium in Colorado Springs. Perhaps he'll be able to shed a little more light on this.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: butters on 04/16/2018 09:32 pm
If true, the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why NASA would fly 4 consecutive unmanned SLS missions would be an inability to human-rate either the iCPS or Orion ECLSS. Delaying EUS in favor of additional iCPS flights seemed to come with the assumption that iCPS would be human-rated, but is that a safe assumption?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/16/2018 09:42 pm
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.

So far this is only a rumor and it has been denied by May and PAO. If it is true though I am sadly inclined to agree. Delaying crew until 2025/26 would be a death knell for the program.

Hopefully this is an unfounded rumor and the program is still on track to launch crew on the second SLS flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/16/2018 10:06 pm
If true, the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why NASA would fly 4 consecutive unmanned SLS missions would be an inability to human-rate either the iCPS or Orion ECLSS.

Just wanted to point out that NASA is requiring 7 successful flights of the Falcon 9 Block 5 before they will allow crew to fly, so why shouldn't the brand new, never flown SLS have a different standard? None of the various pieces and parts have never flown together, and as many have pointed out systems are human-rated, not parts.

So being able to fly 4 flights without crew doesn't seem like a bad idea - sucks for the Orion folks though...

Quote
Delaying EUS in favor of additional iCPS flights seemed to come with the assumption that iCPS would be human-rated, but is that a safe assumption?

The combination of a lack of of users with known needs being identified well in advance, and the high cost of doing flight tests, means that NASA has to make decisions that push the safety envelope.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/16/2018 10:32 pm
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch. Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.

But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.

Can we avoid comments like this please?  I much rather have a dedicated BASH SLS & NASA thread than continually flooding a decent thread that has constructive criticism.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/16/2018 11:07 pm
If the SLS program was a person, it would be put on suicide watch. Things are going so poorly one starts to wonder if there is intentional self-sabotage at work.

But the most likely explanation is still that this is just an incredibly mismanaged program, caused by NASA and contractor extreme hubris over their own capabilities.

Can we avoid comments like this please?  I much rather have a dedicated BASH SLS & NASA thread than continually flooding a decent thread that has constructive criticism.

What is the problem - my tone or point? If you don't think this program is "incredibly mismanaged", then what is it? Just slightly mismanaged or well managed? As for my tone... When there is actual good news, I promise I will be more cheerful.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/16/2018 11:16 pm
What is the problem - my tone or point? If you don't think this program is "incredibly mismanaged", then what is it? Just slightly mismanaged or well managed? As for my tone... When there is actual good news, I promise I will be more cheerful.

Tone. Saying things like "if it was a person it would be on suicide watch" or "if it was a horse it would be shot" like another poster said doesn't add anything substantive to the discussion and creates the impression that you are cheering for failure of the program and those working on it.

Pointing out mismanagement and being frustrated with it is one thing. Gleefully cheering for program failure is another.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/17/2018 12:07 am
The decision to postpone EUS is some of the best news for SLS in a very long while. It might even launch crew!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/17/2018 01:25 am
What is the problem - my tone or point? If you don't think this program is "incredibly mismanaged", then what is it? Just slightly mismanaged or well managed? As for my tone... When there is actual good news, I promise I will be more cheerful.

Tone. Saying things like "if it was a person it would be on suicide watch" or "if it was a horse it would be shot" like another poster said doesn't add anything substantive to the discussion and creates the impression that you are cheering for failure of the program and those working on it.

Pointing out mismanagement and being frustrated with it is one thing. Gleefully cheering for program failure is another.

I agree that my comment (the one about horse), born of the frustration you describe, fails to promote constructive dialogue, and I regret it.

But please note I am not cheering for the program fail.  Rather, I regard its failure to deliver anything worth the enormous resources that continue to be committed to it as so likely that cancellation is the best option.  I would be delighted to be proved wrong.

EDIT (after some thought):  "borne" -> "born"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/17/2018 03:10 am
If the ICPS was both manrated, and upgraded with more propellant and a stronger upper engine like the MB60, or even a switch to 2x RL10s of the strongest variety; that would give a fair sized boost to overall capabilities.

EDIT: This would be cheaper than EUS overall and would be a 'mere' stretch of an asset already in use. An ACES stage or Centaur V could or would not follow later.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TheFallen on 04/17/2018 06:12 am
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.

So far this is only a rumor and it has been denied by May and PAO. If it is true though I am sadly inclined to agree. Delaying crew until 2025/26 would be a death knell for the program.

Hopefully this is an unfounded rumor and the program is still on track to launch crew on the second SLS flight.

I'm only okay (somewhat) with delaying EM-2 till 2025 if that means Europa Clipper will launch in 2022 as hoped for. But that's extremely wishful thinking in regards to the Clipper launching on THIS rocket (and foolish to think that Orion management would tolerate such a long wait to see crew fly on its vehicle), and I wouldn't get my hopes up on that either.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/17/2018 08:11 am
What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!

During Apollo NASA did exactly that:

- AS-201
- AS-202
- Apollo 4
- Apollo 6
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/17/2018 08:14 am
It's extremely expensive to backfit a probe to a launcher it was not designed to fly on.

The folks who designed and built the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) can testify on behalf of your statement. That thing was designed three times, and built twice. Courtesy of initially flying on Delta, than being assigned to STS, only to revert back to Delta because of Challenger.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/17/2018 08:25 am
If true, the only plausible explanation I can come up with for why NASA would fly 4 consecutive unmanned SLS missions would be an inability to human-rate either the iCPS or Orion ECLSS.

Just wanted to point out that NASA is requiring 7 successful flights of the Falcon 9 Block 5 before they will allow crew to fly, so why shouldn't the brand new, never flown SLS have a different standard? None of the various pieces and parts have never flown together, and as many have pointed out systems are human-rated, not parts.

NASA vehicle (SLS) versus non-NASA vehicle (F9)

We've had this discussion before, and it is pointless to repeat it here.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/17/2018 09:09 am
What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!

During Apollo NASA did exactly that:

- AS-201
- AS-202
- Apollo 4
- Apollo 6
Yes - but there were a lot more unknowns about Astronautics and spacecraft design in those days.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: cppetrie on 04/17/2018 03:14 pm
What is the point of sending an empty capsule to space four times? And not a cheap one at that!

During Apollo NASA did exactly that:

- AS-201
- AS-202
- Apollo 4
- Apollo 6
Yes - but there were a lot more unknowns about Astronautics and spacecraft design in those days.
Exactly. They were literally writing the book on this stuff back then and computer modeling of almost anything didn’t exist. It’s 2018. Do we still need to send four empty cans to space to demonstrate something? Commercial crew is only doing one empty flight test.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/17/2018 03:59 pm
We'd finally learn what it costs to do one SLS/Orion flight per year, and if the Team is capable of doing one flight per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/17/2018 10:19 pm
Wonder why?
Quote
OIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.
https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: whitelancer64 on 04/17/2018 10:47 pm
Wonder why?
Quote
OIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.
https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449

Because oversight of NASA is literally the job of NASA's Office of Inspector General.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/18/2018 04:38 am
Wonder why?
Quote
OIG announces an audit assessing NASA’s management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.
https://twitter.com/NASAOIG/status/986350610344808449

Because oversight of NASA is literally the job of NASA's Office of Inspector General.

I don't think the question was why per se, but why now? Did something initiate it, or is it as you suggest just a normal audit?

I have no idea, but I did go on the NASA OIG website and look up what else they are auditing (https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/activeProjects.html). For Space Operations the full list of active audits are:

A-18-008-00   NASA's Management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher
This audit will examine NASA's management of the Space Launch System and Mobile Launcher.


A-17-013-00   Audit of International Space Station Program Commercial Resupply Services Contracts
To examine NASA's Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) Contracts with a special emphasis on the CRS-2 contracts.


A-17-011-00   Audit of NASA's Management and Utilization of the International Space Station
The overall objective of this audit will be to examine NASA's management and utilization of the ISS.


If the assignment numbers are any indication, the CRS and ISS audits were started last year and have not been completed yet. So on the face of it this may just be a normal audit of a large program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Darkseraph on 04/18/2018 09:02 am
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation recognize this and have given modest support to SLS/Orion.

It could very well come to pass that humans Beyond Low Earth Orbit gets indefinitely postponed or axed.
That would be terrible. It would also be dreadful for the commercial companies pursuing deep space exploration and Musk mentioned in his 2016 speech that he hopes NASA doesn't cancel its current efforts.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/18/2018 11:44 am
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation recognize this and have given modest support to SLS/Orion.

We've debated this before, and I don't think it would be productive to divert this thread to another such discussion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/18/2018 11:50 am
Why not?! He said 'legitimate criticisms'. We've debated this before and we will again. You've got to expect this sort of thing in the 'SLS Discussion Thread 2'.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 04/18/2018 12:11 pm
Why not?! He said 'legitimate criticisms'. We've debated this before and we will again. You've got to expect this sort of thing in the 'SLS Discussion Thread 2'.

Legitimate criticisms -> SLS should (not) be cancelled is probably reasonably on topic.
Any discussion after that is an explosion of options.

For example:
Does most of NASA and their contractors actually have a point, when they're geared up to make $100-$1000/g payloads, in an environment where $10/kg launch may be upcoming?

What big NASA program should be funded instead of SLS?

Does LOP-G et al have any point or should it be cancelled at the same time?

Should US cede leadership even if only in funding per year, never mind what's being done?

Is there a politically plausible way forward to do anything productive with the funding if it remains at NASA?

...

At least some of these would probably be better discussed elsewhere.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/18/2018 12:21 pm
'Elsewhere' where? LOP-G and some other projects are as tied to SLS as ISS construction was to Shuttle. And yes; some of the arguments are old, or variations of the old - but we don't always have time to trawl back through old threads to look up what has been discussed before. Sometimes, people are summarizing or recapping. At least I try to.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/18/2018 12:22 pm
This has got to be the 1st step toward cancellation.

Aside from Dana Rohrabacher's unsustained and not particularly coherent griping about SLS, the only congressional criticism I've ever heard has come from retiring members.  Despite long delays, huge overruns, ever-changing missions and now apparently another major hardware switch (the first was when the core-stage-only LEO version that's required by law was quietly dropped), Congress seems happy with SLS.  Hence, I really don't think it is in any near-term danger.

Congress is very much in a free-spending mood this year.  Someday that mood will change.  Next year, not being an election year, will probably be a little tighter.  And the next time there is a Democratic president, many more Republicans in Congress will no doubt start to remember their small-government mantra.  But even then, I think the likely result is budgets and delays to SLS, not cancelation.

Quote
There can't be anyone, anywhere that still believes this is still a functioning program.

Under the hypothesis that Congress's major purpose in funding SLS is to achieve spending in certain districts, the SLS program is functioning well.  And more delays and overruns won't alter that.

We don't know for certain that really is Congress's principal motivation for funding SLS, but we can say that its lack of concern over delays and overruns tends to contradict the alternative hypothesis that the major purpose in funding SLS is space exploration.  In other words, you're looking at this as a space cadet, not as a congressperson.

EDIT:  Dan -> Dana.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/18/2018 12:27 pm
Why not?! He said 'legitimate criticisms'. We've debated this before and we will again. You've got to expect this sort of thing in the 'SLS Discussion Thread 2'.

Good point.  I'd forgotten this thread's title.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/18/2018 12:45 pm
It disappoints me so much - SLS could have been a wonderful launcher with great capability. But corners were cut; not using the lighter 4-segment boosters, not using 5x RS-25s in the corestage and not having from the beginning a decently strong upper stage. Dr Steve Pietrobon has recently crunched the numbers and determined that such a booster would have worked out quite well; capability-wise. The low SLS flight rate is going to be hard to justify the massive overhead and infrastructure costs. It also doesn't help that Orion is such a huge, heavy beast of a capsule spacecraft. It should have been capped at 20 metric tons if NASA was so determined not to have it match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities (which massed more than 30 tons all up). I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...

...There - I've just recapped some of my old arguments/statements.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 04/18/2018 12:54 pm
...I know that a very likely replacement for the program is absolutely nothing!

This argument is often trotted out to defend the current PoR, no matter how poorly that program may be performing.

But historically, it's not been true.  NASA human space flight has gone through a handful of major program shifts.  Despite this, the budget and employment levels for the major human space flight field centers and NASA overall have remained remarkably static for decades.

The question is whether something useful can be done with the taxpayer's annual expenditure of ~$8 billion in this area given the constraints on where it has to be spent.

I think something useful can be done.  A lot of the knowledge, skills, and core capabilities at these field centers can be applied to many different systems, vehicles, and architectures.

Should the MSFC propulsion engineer specializing in LOX/LH2 engines be working on making SSMEs expendable?  Or on new engines for transit stages and landers?

Should the JSC environmental engineer be working on life support systems for a Apollo-type crew capsule?  Or on life support systems for transit habs, landers, and surface habs?

Should the KSC fluids engineer be working on transferring cryogenic propellants through a launch tower?  Or on transferring cryogenic propellants between vehicles and depots in space?

Quote
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.

The argument that needs to be had is not about anyone's pet architecture.

The argument that needs to be had is about appropriate government roles and responsibilities.

It would take strong, visionary leadership at the agency, backed by consistent political support at the WH, to stand up to Congress, point out the PoR's unsustainability, and have that conversation about roles and responsibilities.

If the conversation stays focused on how to make best use of NASA's talent and resources given current problems and the larger landscape -- and avoids an "us versus them" mentality with the rest of the space sector -- change in a useful direction would follow.

Unfortunately, NASA has not had that kind of leadership or WH support for many years, and it's unclear when it will again.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 04/18/2018 02:59 pm
... I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...
The side mount had a lot going for it. Chiefly it would have offered a pretty smooth transition from STS. The tank and SRBs would need few modifications, the launch pads and ground infrastructure would have to be changed but minimally. The workforce and tooling could have transitioned while flying out the last few STS missions minimizing the gap. The difficulty would have been developing that side mounted container.

However, the launcher itself wouldn't have been all that more capable both in terms of payload volume and mass than the Falcon Heavy. The Block I version of Not Shuttle-C would lift 71 metric tons to LEO with a 7.5 meter faring. We might be sitting here in 2018 with an operational NASA launcher but also with a cheaper alternative. I suspect that the Not Shuttle-C would still be called a failure in that case. SLS for all of its delays and problems is at least a lot more powerful than any other options at this time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/18/2018 03:17 pm
Personally, and I want to be frank and clear, I wish ill to the SLS program. I want it to be canceled as I strongly believe its cancelation would be positive overall for human space exploration. And I'm not ashamed to say this, nor should I. It's a human project and projects start and fail every day, sometimes paving the way for something better.

I understand there's a lot of talent behind it, and I'm sure those people could find a plethora of more exciting projects within NASA or elsewhere.

The SLS block 1 is not necessary today (or better starting 2020 till 2023-24), and block 1b, 2 won't be necessary in the mid to late 2020s because of the many cheaper, better, higher cadence (thus more reliable) alternatives that are and will be available more and more.

Not only that, but SLS' true raison d'être should be lunar and mars missions.
It's becoming more and more clear that to sustain those missions low costs are required. SLS doesn't offer any positive perspective for a future in which crewed flights and landing on Mars and the moon are frequent, regular and sustainable.
It simply costs too much, inherently so.

The SLS is not only flawed in its execution, it's flawed in its very design, unable to support deep space exploration in a financially feasible and sustainable way.

I strongly doubt NASA could financially cover Mars landings with an SLS based architecture living up to today's safety standards. I doubt they could do Moon landings as well.
Cheap doesn't only mean cheap, it means more testing of the lander and architecture before crewed missions, it means more mass on the surface and more redundancy, it means more margins.
Cheap also mean safer for the same money, in addition to more mass delivered.
This is crucial, and I'm not convinced the SLS could provide the expected levels of safety with reasonable budgets, that's a reason why human landings get postponed IMO.

NASA has plenty of alternatives now and in the near future for heavy lifting capacity, it will have SHLV alternatives for deep space missions when needed. This is becoming more and more undeniable.

LV development is a small part of NASA's mission, and should be a small part of the agency's deep space exploration program, and a small part of NASA's budget as well.
Instead, as of now, it's almost monopolizing all the budget for exploration missions and suffocating the program.
A program that has to constantly pospone planned landings on the moon and on Mars because there's simply not enough money to support them with the SLS.
Canceling the SLS means freeing up resources to really sustain human exploration, by deferring much of the LV cost (and all the development costs, since the SHLVs are being developed almost exclusively with private funding) to commercial companies and using the budget for things that commercial companies don't want to invest into.


Reusability is the way to go, distributed launch is the way to go, reducing costs is the way to go.
Not 'a' way to go, the only way to make human missions in deep space sustainable and viable in a decent timeframe.
SLS has nothing of this, FH, New Glenn, Vulcan ACES, the BFR are exactly this.
Why again wasting resources on this rocket?

Edit: btw of course this is just my opinion, I'm just stating it strongly as a reaction to those that think SLS' cancelation is not an acceptable opinion. It is.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/18/2018 03:21 pm
It also doesn't help that Orion is such a huge, heavy beast of a capsule spacecraft. It should have been capped at 20 metric tons if NASA was so determined not to have it match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities (which massed more than 30 tons all up).
NASA wasn't as determined to make it match/not match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities as it was to make sure it was too heavy for the Atlas-V. Mike Griffin was determined to make sure that ONLY the Ares-I would be able to lift the spacecraft to LEO and wanted no one to be able to say that an EXISTING EELV could do the job instead. Because if the Atlas could fly it, then there was no more justification for the 1.5 architecture which required the Shuttle SRB. That would have destroyed his argument to Congress during his confirmation hearing that he could implement President Bush's VSE with his own Shuttle-derived system that he had created while at the Planetary Society. It's no coincidence that it duplicated exactly what became the Constellation program.

Quote
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...
It would have been a great cargo-only vehicle but was even more dangerous that Shuttle for manned flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/18/2018 03:56 pm
I'm not really understanding why the usual crowd is taking a tweet from NASAWatch as gospel.  May even stated that is not what he said in regards to crew flights moving to 2025/26.  We don't need SLS discussion threads to turn into BuzzFeed threads.  Lets stick with rationale criticism based on facts, not unfounded rumors.  SLS has plenty to criticize without making things up.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 04/18/2018 04:33 pm
It also doesn't help that Orion is such a huge, heavy beast of a capsule spacecraft. It should have been capped at 20 metric tons if NASA was so determined not to have it match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities (which massed more than 30 tons all up).
NASA wasn't as determined to make it match/not match the Apollo CSM's delta-v capabilities as it was to make sure it was too heavy for the Atlas-V. Mike Griffin was determined to make sure that ONLY the Ares-I would be able to lift the spacecraft to LEO and wanted no one to be able to say that an EXISTING EELV could do the job instead. Because if the Atlas could fly it, then there was no more justification for the 1.5 architecture which required the Shuttle SRB. That would have destroyed his argument to Congress during his confirmation hearing that he could implement President Bush's VSE with his own Shuttle-derived system that he had created while at the Planetary Society. It's no coincidence that it duplicated exactly what became the Constellation program.

Quote
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...
It would have been a great cargo-only vehicle but was even more dangerous that Shuttle for manned flight.

Then put a properly sized Orion on Atlas V. The only thing wrong with the 1.5 architecture was the Ares rockets. Would have worked well with a Shuttle-C like cargo vehicle and EELV for crew.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/18/2018 04:59 pm
The only thing wrong with the 1.5 architecture was the Ares rockets. Would have worked well with a Shuttle-C like cargo vehicle and EELV for crew.

I don't think we should kid ourselves. Shuttle-C would have been no better, and would have evolved into something not very Shuttle derived. Just like SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/18/2018 05:10 pm
I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV.

Suppose Shuttle side-mount had been chosen.  It might be ready to fly by now.  Then what?  NASA would still be in the position of not being able to afford much in the way of useful payloads and missions for it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 04/18/2018 06:37 pm
The only thing wrong with the 1.5 architecture was the Ares rockets. Would have worked well with a Shuttle-C like cargo vehicle and EELV for crew.

I don't think we should kid ourselves. Shuttle-C would have been no better, and would have evolved into something not very Shuttle derived. Just like SLS.

Now you're just being pessimistic.

I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV.

Suppose Shuttle side-mount had been chosen.  It might be ready to fly by now.  Then what?  NASA would still be in the position of not being able to afford much in the way of useful payloads and missions for it.

I'll agree with that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/18/2018 09:10 pm
Personally, and I want to be frank and clear, I wish ill to the SLS program. I want it to be canceled as I strongly believe its cancelation would be positive overall for human space exploration. And I'm not ashamed to say this, nor should I. It's a human project and projects start and fail every day, sometimes paving the way for something better.

Be aware that there is great danger to this approach.   I'm no less annoyed at the mess made of SLS, but the politics of he situation stretches much more broadly than just one program/project.

The issue has always been that the people within the government who support NASA's fundamental budget every year, are exactly the same ones who want to see the primary benefit for their own states & districts.

SLS produces copious amounts of contracts that equate to jobs and incomes for a plethora of companies all around the country, but primarily focussed on the main 'space states' of Alabama, Texas, California and Florida.   Unsurprisingly, it is representatives of these same places that fill most of the various committee seats in charge of NASA's budget (appropriations and authorisations in both the House & Senate).

Exactly the same thing happens for all the other government departments too, education, agriculture, defence etc., so nothing unusual is actually going on here, but we're more familiar with space politics, so this is where our particular bit of tyre meets our particular bit of road :)

SLS was largely driven by a contingent from the Senate who primarily wanted:

1) NASA internal launch vehicle engineering capabilities to be massively bolstered, instead of it all being in the contractors.   This primarily benefits NASA Marshall, as this is NASA primary design center for launchers.   Alabama is the state, with Sen. Richard Shelby being one of the biggest high-rollers of them all, in terms of NASA budget.

2) ATK, based in Utah, were prepared to leave the space business entirely unless they could secure themselves a big fat juicy contract for development.   Sen. Orin Hatch was the big player here.   It should also be noted that ATK leaving the space market would have also had a dramatic effect on the cost of military rocket systems too (NASA no longer sharing critical infrastructure costs every year), so all the budgeteers involved in the military industrial complex would also have been strongly opposed to this outcome, voting appropriately every year.

There were certainly others, but these were the two biggest poker hands being played over the last decade.


Anyway, back to my point...   If you cancel SLS, you risk all of those congressional support for NASA's top-line budget being reduced or even removed entirely - and that affects the standing of the whole agency's future.   If NASA lost support in Congress, the budget could easily slip from the current $19-20bn/year levels to low single-digits.   And then everything's lost.

Were there alternatives?   Yes.   Chuck, myself and a host of others came up with plenty of alternatives that would still have funelled the required money to the same districts, supporting all the same jobs and contracts, but the core issue was that it would have been a dozen smaller programs, not two (Orion & SLS) massive ones - and each year, each of those smaller projects one would - individually - be a little more vulnerable to cancellation.   The politico's never wanted to play that game, so they pushed very strongly for the "too big to fail" solutions that we're still looking at today.

In DIRECT, we pushed to use the same funds a much lower cost Shuttle-derived rocket that could have been fielded much sooner by NOT replacing all of the infrastructure, together with a versatile prop-depot architecture, a lunar lander that would evolve into a Mars lander too.   And we wanted the technologies to leverage the outpost hardware too (Habs, ISRU, power gen systems etc).   It could all have been done, but each project would actually have needed to PERFORM (instead of just burning money) to ensure it stayed alive through multiple governments and their budgetary machinations.

But sadly that isn't the direction that our leaders took us in.   Their path did, however, guarantee the NASA budget remained strong, and that in turn did support all the jobs and contracts, even across a very difficult economic period in the country.   But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.   C'est la vie.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 04/18/2018 09:52 pm
Truly a great post kraisee, your input is always greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: JAFO on 04/18/2018 10:41 pm
Ach.... I remember... Heady days, they were.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/18/2018 11:07 pm

But sadly that isn't the direction that our leaders took us in.   Their path did, however, guarantee the NASA budget remained strong, and that in turn did support all the jobs and contracts, even across a very difficult economic period in the country.   But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.   C'est la vie.

Ross.

Wow, thank you Mr. Tierney for the insight.
I’m only a fan and still a student, so forgive me if I’m young and impatient, probably this makes me focus on what I’d like to see and easily forget that things are a bit more complicated that that : )
I know that talking is much easier than actually trying to make a difference and I greatly respect you for doing so.

With that said, your post really leaves me discouraged, and confirms suspicions that I and many here share.

The thing is, cynically, if this really is a perverted game aimed at maximizing costs, a game that NASA is essentially blackmailed into playing in order to keep their budget, what will happen if something unmasks it?

Because frankly this whole thing can go on only as far as NASA can claim there’s no better way to go than the SLS.

There has to be a point where reality prevails, when FH or New Glenn or the BFR or ACES come online and no one can claim SLS isn’t replaceable with better, cheaper alternatives anymore.

When this happens, because it’s a matter of when, not if, what happens politically? What happens to NASA? Will they attempt to keep the SLS indefinitely, even when proved unnecessary? If they have to get rid of it, what happens to NASA’s budget?

Is restructuring NASA to get rid of the SLS (and probably of the HLV program altogether) while still retaining its budget possible?

If I understand correctly you think it isn’t, I cannot argue with you on this with my very limited knowledge, and you’re probably right, but I really hope you’re wrong. Because, for how I see it, a big restructuring within NASA will be inevitable.

They'll have to abandon SLS and, maybe because I'm too young and naive, I think something positive for NASA and for spaceflight as a whole will stem for this. A new, challenging effort for sure, but a new vision, a new energy, a renewed dream.
Things will have to change, but the real priorities, the ones that count, will return to the forefront.

In this reality, to me, NASA is being saved from its resignation in Human Spaceflight by someone else's dream. And you can bet I hope the ones who still dare to dream succeed and save the ones that no longer do (or in this case, are forced not to).

Maybe I'm just being naive, maybe this is impossible, but you know what? It's still worth pursuing and supporting.
After all what do we have now?

Quote
But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.

We have this, no perspective, no dream.
And a dream, a positive dream, however hard to reach, will always be better than no dreams.

Francesco Torri, a random student from Italy.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2018 12:21 am

But sadly that isn't the direction that our leaders took us in.   Their path did, however, guarantee the NASA budget remained strong, and that in turn did support all the jobs and contracts, even across a very difficult economic period in the country.   But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.   C'est la vie.

Ross.

Wow, thank you Mr. Tierney for the insight.
I’m only a fan and still a student, so forgive me if I’m young and impatient, probably this makes me focus on what I’d like to see and easily forget that things are a bit more complicated that that : )
I know that talking is much easier than actually trying to make a difference and I greatly respect you for doing so.

With that said, your post really leaves me discouraged, and confirms suspicions that I and many here share.

The thing is, cynically, if this really is a perverted game aimed at maximizing costs, a game that NASA is essentially blackmailed into playing in order to keep their budget, what will happen if something unmasks it?

There are too many people in the greater population who just don't want to know, and care even less.   And I'm talking about more subjects than just NASA.   Until that changes and the voting majority of the country wants real foundational change (explicitly: not just changing the colour of the political flag currently in power), I wouldn't hold your breath.

I still feel it is possible to make changes in the current environment though.   All you have to do (!) is clearly show the politico's, the bosses of the contractors, and the other stake-holders involved in decision-making how they, their districts and their constituents can benefit significantly from making those changes.   Not easy.   But definitely possible - especially possible in this case, as such changes really could be of major benefit to everyone!


Quote
Because frankly this whole thing can go on only as far as NASA can claim there’s no better way to go than the SLS.

There has to be a point where reality prevails, when FH or New Glenn or the BFR or ACES come online and no one can claim SLS isn’t replaceable with better, cheaper alternatives anymore.

BFR is already proving to be embarrassing for SLS.   That situation will only get worse as BFR makes increasingly greater progress, faster, and at substantially lower cost.   Something like this OIG investigation is likely to shine a light on the problem for members of the greater public to see.   People respond to simple soundbites, and when OIG compares likely development time and costs between SLS and BFR, the soundbites aren't going to be good for SLS.

Aside from this OIG thing, when BFS starts grasshopper flights in 18-24 months, that's the point where I predict some very serious questions will be raised nationwide, and that's when those inside the beltway will be forced to face a new reality.

I predict SLS will be cancelled.   I'm not sure if it will fly its first mission before cancellation, but I quietly predict that it will never make a second flight.

I personally expect that we'll witness a number of key people leaving the program over the next 12-18 months, mainly so that they aren't left holding the can when things really start to go pear-shaped.   It won't look good on anyone's resume to be on the hot-seat at that point, and we've seen it before.


Quote
When this happens, because it’s a matter of when, not if, what happens politically? What happens to NASA? Will they attempt to keep the SLS indefinitely, even when proved unnecessary? If they have to get rid of it, what happens to NASA’s budget?

Is restructuring NASA to get rid of the SLS (and probably of the HLV program altogether) while still retaining its budget possible?

If I understand correctly you think it isn’t, I cannot argue with you on this with my very limited knowledge, and you’re probably right, but I really hope you’re wrong. Because, for how I see it, a big restructuring within NASA will be inevitable.

Actually, I think it's an eminently correctable situation - quite able to satisfy everyone's core objectives, political, economic, contractual and technological.

I don't know that the agency can be made to prioritize actual RESULTS over directing appropriated funds, but NASA can still re-focus its energies on a wide range of things that the commercial sector isn't already making excellent progress at.   The projects I mentioned above come instantly to mind, and I can think of a dozen more projects that would keep NASA more than busy.

It might take a concerted effort of like-minded people (similar to what we had in DIRECT) to compile the full range of options - working with contractors, politicians offices and others to identify the projects with most impact.

Personally, I think that NASA should re-focus its entire organisation towards all of those critical game-changing projects that the commercial guys won't be able to reach for at least another decade or two.   NASA should become a research organisation, paving the way for commercial operators to pick up their pioneering capabilities and commercializing them.

I'd start by setting the long-term vision of colonizing not just Mars, but the entire solar system.   Then, work out all the things we need to achieve that vision, break it into sections, figure out what technologies stand on the shoulders of other tech, and prioritize the ones that make the biggest differences, as early as possible.


Quote
They'll have to abandon SLS and, maybe because I'm too young and naive, I think something positive for NASA and for spaceflight as a whole will stem for this. A new, challenging effort for sure, but a new vision, a new energy, a renewed dream.
Things will have to change, but the real priorities, the ones that count, will return to the forefront.

In this reality, to me, NASA is being saved from its resignation by someone else's dream. And you can bet I hope the ones who still dare to dream succeed and save the ones that no longer do (or in this case, are forced not to).

I think we still have a lot of daring, visionary people across the industry.   Just fewer and fewer of those people find the agency's slow, inefficient and overly-bureaucratic programs to be the best fit for them.

Thankfully there are plenty of other places for them to go in the commercial sector.   But it does mean that NASA itself is hemorrhaging skilled and experienced talent - and that is definitely NOT sustainable.


Quote
Maybe I'm just being naive, maybe this is impossible, but you know what? It's still worth pursuing and supporting.
After all what do we have now?

Quote
But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.

We have this, no perspective, no dream.
And a dream, a positive dream, however hard to reach, will always be better than no dreams.

Francesco Torri, a random student from Italy.

It requires a concerted effort.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world;
indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

-Margaret Mead
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/19/2018 12:49 am
I used to have a several hundred page document that pertained to all aspects of the 2009 'Not-Shuttle C' launcher; including abort options from it for an Orion Command Module and it's escape tower. There was some concern about flame-impingement on the E.T. during the abort. But I recall it was not deemed a serious issue, because the nozzle layout would be redesigned and rotated a few degrees so that there was less impingement. This would make it less worse than the sustained scorching the rear of the E.T. got during normal Shuttle flights when the flame would 'backflow' somewhat, as the whole craft got nearer to vacuum.

I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago. With the greatest respect to Chuck; I don't think the crew escape options for 'Not Shuttle C' would have been worse than the ordinary Shuttle stack. In 2016 I caught up with two old friends in Houston who were NASA Engineers (one now works for SpaceX). They told me about internal studies within NASA that they'd read with nostalgia a couple years back. Some management were both wistful and boiling mad that a more 'pure' Shuttle derived launcher wasn't chosen. The Shuttle infrastructure was well-established, well-oiled and was capable of flying up to five times per year - probably more so, if you took the Orbiter out of the equation. And The last years of Shuttle, beyond 'Columbia' were getting excellent performance from the whole system. 'Not C's only new major component would have been the big payload carrier, which would (should?) have been a huge composite structure to save mass - and only now are we seeing massive composite structures for spacecraft emerging from the drawing boards of SpaceX. I will say again that 'Not C' would never have been the optimal choice for heavy lift launcher. In at least two ways; DIRECT would have been superior. But 'Not C' would have been superior at least to SLS in one big, fat, greasy way - Cost.

'Not C' should have been $14 billion, worse-case scenario.

By the time SLS Block 1 flies; it will have consumed about $40 billion bucks in cost - and would still have Billions to go with the Exploration Upper Stage development?!  In nobody's opinion and nobody's universe, is that optimal or acceptable?! We were saying these things in 2008, when Ares 1 & V were said to go and cost about $50 Billion to develop. About $50 Billion! Heh - might as well make that $70 Billion (cue the Kiss song 'Psycho Circus'). How many Atlas V-551 and Delta IV-Heavies could you afford with that? Or Falcon Heavies for that matter?? It almost doesn't matter now that Ross Tierney (Kraisee) may be absolutely right about political support keeping the funding going. Over the Ares debacle, I used to say that Mike Griffin was 'The Emporer With No Clothes'. Well, Dr Griffin is long gone and there are still no clothes. The whole NASA/SLS situation is degrading into a house of cards and the chickens are coming home to roost. Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but that's how I see it. I wonder how long it will be before others see it the same way?

Just finally about 'Not C' (not intended to sound like 'Nazi') - yeah, it would have made a great cargo launcher. With the ordinary 4 segment booster (no multi billion dollar 5 segment costs) and RS-25s running at 104% there could be 70 tons placed into LEO. That could be for crew. For Cargo: running the engines at 111% and expending the SRBs would get 75 tons. For manned lunar missions, Cargo launchers could send a Lunar Lander out to the Moon ahead of the manned launch. Then, use an uprated Delta IV-Heavy to place in Low Earth orbit an enhanced, 5 meter Delta upper stage. Launch another D-IVH with the original, 26 ton Orion that goes and docks with the Delta stage and proceeds to TLI and a few days later inserts the Orion into lunar orbit, near the waiting Lander. Launching 2x Delta IV-Heavies might cost about the same as a single 'Not C' cargo launch, but at least the crew safety would be theoretically better. In fact; the architecture above might work equally well with 4x launches of EELV's. But we've been down that discussion path before, in other threads...

It looks as though Jim Brindenstine is about to become NASA Administrator. Early in his tenure it should become clearer if he can tidy up the slightly dysfunctional mess that SLS/Orion has become. To some extent he will be inheriting the 'Ghost of Emporer Griffin's mess. Are we about to witness a Hail Mary Pass for SLS? I'm trying to remain optimistic. I re-read this post and notice it's another 'coulda-shoulda-woulda'. But at least now in 2018 - unlike in 2008 - there are viable choices for alternatives...

Matt Pavletich.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 04/19/2018 01:00 am
If you cancel SLS, you risk all of those congressional support for NASA's top-line budget being reduced or even removed entirely

This defense is trotted out whenever the PoR is in trouble, and it needs to go the way of the dinosaurs.

It's self-defeating to argue that that nation either has to accept a backwards, poorly conceived, poor performing, and counterproductive program or the nation gets no civil human space flight program at all. 

Moreover, history shows that it's not true. 

Apollo was terminated and Shuttle followed.  Shuttle was terminated and Orion/Ares/SLS followed.

Even when there isn't a major termination, something else is proposed to fill any gap.  Shuttle development ramped down and Freedom/ISS ramped up a few years later.

What history shows is that the US federal government has spent something in the neighborhood of $8+ billion per year on human space flight for several decades and will probably continue to do so for decades to come.

The question is whether anything useful can be done with that annual expenditure given the constraints on where it must be spent.

I think that something(s) useful can be done, per a post slightly upstream.  To first order, if NASA's leadership satisfies Congress's needs on where the taxpayer dollars are spent, Congress will go along with what those dollars are spent on.

But it's up to NASA's leadership, not Congress, to formulate useful programs.  When the Executive Branch fails to do so, Congress will fill the vacuum with hastily conceived, counterproductive, giga-scale pork.

Quote
If NASA lost support in Congress, the budget could easily slip from the current $19-20bn/year levels to low single-digits.   And then everything's lost.

This is another false and untrue defense trotted out whenever the PoR is in trouble.

Movement in the rest of the NASA budget do not rely upon the success or failure of the human space flight budget.

Aeronautics, the space sciences, Earth science, and even aerospace technology have their own customers and constituencies separate from human space flight.

Moreover, these budgets do not move in lockstep.  From my own professional experience, there have been periods when the space science budget was decimated to feed human space flight.  And there have been periods when savings from the human space flight side were applied to the space science budget.

Quote
But we seem to be just as far from our promised future as we were when we started.

If it is true that the nation has to accept an non-performing civil human space flight program or nothing at all, then maybe nothing at all is the better choice.

The US taxpayer has spent something on the order of a half-trillion dollars on civil human space flight since NASA's formation.  Given the returns to date, maybe the next half-trillion would be better spent elsewhere over the next few decades.

We'd still have a space science program that is second-to-none with a budget that is on par with that of the entire European Space Agency, along with continued practical investments in aeronautics, aerospace technology, and Earth science.  And maybe Bezos, Musk et al. will find their way forward to the Moon or Mars or wherever on their own.

I don't believe that's the right choice, at least not yet.  I think NASA's human space flight program can be reformed with the right leadership.

But if we truly believe that the US federal government really can't do better, then maybe it should stop trying.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/19/2018 01:08 am
The situation is fluid - it could go either way now, regarding the withdrawal or reallocation of funding. Kraisee has been right before, but we are now entering a different era. I think we are definitely living in the era of what the Chinese would call 'interesting times'.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2018 02:30 am
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! ...
Only one of many options. More likely is transferring it to some other project, like a lunar or Mars lander (built by the typical contractors) or a transfer vehicle or base, etc, built by the usual contractors.

The political requirement is jobs in districts, not SLS itself. SLS is just one method to do that. It doesn't HAVE to be a launch vehicle, although it most likely will be given to the usual contractors.

That said, I'm glad that SLS is delaying EUS and using iCPS instead. That means more money spent on payloads and missions and less on just iterating a rocket design (and ground infrastructure) and never flying.

iCPS enables SLS to actually be used. So when SLS is cancelled (which it will), it might have even launched some things. Orion might even launch with crew, who knows? Let's go crazy!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/19/2018 02:41 am
... I still wish they had gone with John Shannon's side-mounted HLV... But c'est la vie...
The side mount had a lot going for it. Chiefly it would have offered a pretty smooth transition from STS. The tank and SRBs would need few modifications, the launch pads and ground infrastructure would have to be changed but minimally. The workforce and tooling could have transitioned while flying out the last few STS missions minimizing the gap. The difficulty would have been developing that side mounted container.

However, the launcher itself wouldn't have been all that more capable both in terms of payload volume and mass than the Falcon Heavy. The Block I version of Not Shuttle-C would lift 71 metric tons to LEO with a 7.5 meter faring. We might be sitting here in 2018 with an operational NASA launcher but also with a cheaper alternative. I suspect that the Not Shuttle-C would still be called a failure in that case. SLS for all of its delays and problems is at least a lot more powerful than any other options at this time.
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.

Hindsight is 20/20. I was more of an inline fan myself, but given all the difficulty that caused, side mount would've been a FAR better plan if the goal was to eliminate a launching gap. And then, use Delta IV Heavy in the same role as Ares I (which eliminates the safety concern).

I mean, in 2012 (when sidemount could've been flying if it had been cargo-only), Falcon Heavy didn't exist yet. Falcon Heavy didn't come onto the scene until 2018. Sidemount would've had 6 years of unrivaled dominance.

But now we inline SLS block I, which is hardly larger than sidemount, and probably won't launch until 2020, when BFR might fly. Block Ib might not fly until well until the mid 2020s, so basically inline will NEVER have dominance. AT BEST it might be like 10% higher performance than the next-largest rocket (Falcon Heavy) for a couple years before being totally out-classed by BFR.

So when all is said and done, Sidemount would've looked much better for NASA than SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/19/2018 03:29 am
I've said elsewhere before that the EUS now may never fly. I too am grateful for more money going into payloads and missions. Because it's all about the missions, in the end. Yeah - Shuttle orbited the Earth for 30 years; but there were missions aplenty and a great deal of operational experience, maturity and science was done. Was it optimal? No - not even going to try to claim that. But if we can get a system - any system - that can launch 70 tons or more into LEO 5 or 6 times per year with much of that mass intended for beyond Earth orbit; we can get operational experience, maturity etc going again. But this time in a much further arena. If LOP-G can end up with a decent, upgraded life support system that can keep people alive for far more than 45 days; much operational experience for Mars could get achieved. Send a crew to LOP-G where a Lander is waiting, have them live there for a pre-specified long duration period, land them on the Moon for about a month, send them back to LOP-G for another extended stay, then return them to Earth. It would resemble a 'Reader's Digest', condensed version of an Interplanetary space mission and would also resemble a mission that Mike Griffin once strongly advocated.

But changing the subject slightly - I've seen that the new OmegA launcher from Orbital ATK has a dual Centaur upper stage. If the EUS was bypassed altogether and the 5 meter Delta IV stage was uprated with 30 or 40% percent more propellant and either a stronger upper stage engine like the MB-60 or 2x RL-10C engines - I wonder what kind of performance could be wrung out of an SLS 'Block 1C'? (notional designation). Yes; it would probably eliminate the possibility of 10 metric ton, co-manifested payloads. But how much would it boost the 'single throw' payload of a Block 1 - which isn't much more than a single 26-ton Orion at the moment? I'm genuinely curious and not indulging in 'rocket lego' or Kerbal.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 04/19/2018 07:11 am
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.

If you haven't noticed, the money situation has changed radically in the past 2 years, the billionaires are funding their own pet architecture using their own money (or investors' money), they are pushing ahead with their SLS alternatives regardless of where SLS budget will end up. Now it's longer about the SLS budget, but increasingly about how NASA HSF will fare when taxpayers found out what we have known for years: SLS is wasting tens of billions of their money on 50 years old technology when private companies are building ships from SF.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/19/2018 07:32 am
It disappoints me so much - SLS could have been a wonderful launcher with great capability. But corners were cut; not using the lighter 4-segment boosters, not using 5x RS-25s in the corestage and not having from the beginning a decently strong upper stage. Dr Steve Pietrobon has recently crunched the numbers and determined that such a booster would have worked out quite well; capability-wise.

That wasn't me but team DIRECT. I've only looked at using RSRMV and other new boosters. Also, with RSRM, you only need four engines on the core as the core is much lighter compared to SLS. Jupiter 246 could put 100.7 t into a 39x320 km delivery orbit. Block IB can put 93.1 t into a 241 km circular orbit. The reduced performance is due to the relatively low thrust of the core and EUS compared to Jupiter.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/19/2018 01:05 pm
We'd still have a space science program that is second-to-none with a budget that is on par with that of the entire European Space Agency, along with continued practical investments in aeronautics, aerospace technology, and Earth science.  And maybe Bezos, Musk et al. will find their way forward to the Moon or Mars or wherever on their own.

I don't believe that's the right choice, at least not yet.  I think NASA's human space flight program can be reformed with the right leadership.

But if we truly believe that the US federal government really can't do better, then maybe it should stop trying.

Refocusing NASA's human spaceflight program to rely on transport architectures developed and provided by the industry isn't 'giving up', and it doesn't mean eliminating NASA's role in it but redefining it in a way that's actually meaningful and useful.

You say you don't believe it's the right choice, at least yet. To me it's more and more clear that it not only is the right choice, but the only choice to advance the human space exploration program.

If NASA stubbornly continues to focus on LV development for deep space, and providing the lifting capacity for their exploration missions in-house, the only result is delaying them and reducing their scope.

The problem with human space exploration is cost, or better high cost is a non-starter for it.

In no way NASA can offer low cost architectures internally, it's simply not their job, not how they function.
Finding business cases, leveraging economies of scale and providing low cost access to space is something that only private business can do, and NASA should not try to compete with them, but leverage them and use their resources on things that, as Mr. Tierney said, the private sector is unwilling, or incapable to invest into.

HSF, human exploration and scientific missions entail a lot more than building LVs, spacecrafts and landers, and there's a crucial role for NASA beyond that.

NASA LVs made sense with a space industry still in its infancy, a mature industry makes them redundant.

To me, the sooner the policymakers acknowledge this and a real effort to reorient NASA's HSF program towards new, low cost architectures that leverage the commercial transportation systems (LVs, crewed spacecrafts, tugs, habs and landers), the sooner we can have a renaissance of space exploration.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 04/19/2018 03:39 pm
Refocusing NASA's human spaceflight program to rely on transport architectures developed and provided by the industry isn't 'giving up', and it doesn't mean eliminating NASA's role in it but redefining it in a way that's actually meaningful and useful.

We're in agreement.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: notsorandom on 04/19/2018 05:17 pm
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.

Hindsight is 20/20. I was more of an inline fan myself, but given all the difficulty that caused, side mount would've been a FAR better plan if the goal was to eliminate a launching gap. And then, use Delta IV Heavy in the same role as Ares I (which eliminates the safety concern).

I mean, in 2012 (when sidemount could've been flying if it had been cargo-only), Falcon Heavy didn't exist yet. Falcon Heavy didn't come onto the scene until 2018. Sidemount would've had 6 years of unrivaled dominance.

But now we inline SLS block I, which is hardly larger than sidemount, and probably won't launch until 2020, when BFR might fly. Block Ib might not fly until well until the mid 2020s, so basically inline will NEVER have dominance. AT BEST it might be like 10% higher performance than the next-largest rocket (Falcon Heavy) for a couple years before being totally out-classed by BFR.

So when all is said and done, Sidemount would've looked much better for NASA than SLS.
I don't want to get too much into a policy discussion here but with hindsight I find it hard to believe that with the same actors any sort of rocket from that time period would have been successful. Not Shuttle-C, Jupiter, RAC-2, or any flavor of SLS would all have had to deal with the same things that have hobbled SLS. All the SDHLVs assumed a relatively smooth transition from STS. Instead the administration fought against any NASA owned vehicle. Then they delayed implementing the program for a year. Throughout all that time they laid off the STS workforce and scrapped as much infrastructure as they could. Congress gave the program a flat budget forcing wasteful concurrent engineering efforts and has never practiced any oversight other than making sure the money gets spent. Orion now freed from the Ares I mass constraints is still nowhere near being ready to fly even a decade later. If Orion was able to fly back then the we wouldn't have gotten commercial crew, maybe not even COTS, and SpaceX wouldn't be in as good of a position to be working on the BFR.

I just don't see how the number of RS-25 on the bottom, the number or segments in the boosters, or where the cargo sits would have mattered against all that. We can debate which design was better. However the best, most perfect, hardware will always fail if it doesn't have good project management and support of competent leadership. They could have rolled STS right into Not Shuttle-C or Direct but there was no way that was going to happen.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2018 05:49 pm
We can debate which design was better. However the best, most perfect, hardware will always fail if it doesn't have good project management and support of competent leadership. They could have rolled STS right into Not Shuttle-C or Direct but there was no way that was going to happen.

100% agree.

The question for me now:   Is anyone working on what will come after SLS?   I'm not seeing any light coming from that direction yet, and there needs to be *SOME* payloads after 2020, even in a world where SLS continues.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 04/19/2018 06:02 pm
The question for me now:   Is anyone working on what will come after SLS?   I'm not seeing any light coming from that direction yet, and there needs to be *SOME* payloads after 2020, even in a world where SLS continues.

What do you mean by that?
There are payloads in various stages of design that have not been assigned a launcher.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/19/2018 06:46 pm
Refocusing NASA's human spaceflight program to rely on transport architectures developed and provided by the industry isn't 'giving up', and it doesn't mean eliminating NASA's role in it but redefining it in a way that's actually meaningful and useful.

We're in agreement.

Sorry, I completely misinterpreted what the 'that' was referring to in ' I don't believe that's the right choice'.
You were referring to eliminating NASA's role in human space exploration altogether and I completely agree that it's not the right choice. Just wanted to clarify.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 04/19/2018 07:46 pm
That is fine. SLS block I (the one that actually will be flying) is basically the same class as NSC and Falcon Heavy. but who really cares if it's 30% more powerful? At the end of the day, what matters is ACTUALLY FLYING. If the designers were so worried about 30% more performance that they effectively sacrificed nearly a decade of launches, then they weren't effective designers.

Hindsight is 20/20. I was more of an inline fan myself, but given all the difficulty that caused, side mount would've been a FAR better plan if the goal was to eliminate a launching gap. And then, use Delta IV Heavy in the same role as Ares I (which eliminates the safety concern).

I mean, in 2012 (when sidemount could've been flying if it had been cargo-only), Falcon Heavy didn't exist yet. Falcon Heavy didn't come onto the scene until 2018. Sidemount would've had 6 years of unrivaled dominance.

But now we inline SLS block I, which is hardly larger than sidemount, and probably won't launch until 2020, when BFR might fly. Block Ib might not fly until well until the mid 2020s, so basically inline will NEVER have dominance. AT BEST it might be like 10% higher performance than the next-largest rocket (Falcon Heavy) for a couple years before being totally out-classed by BFR.

So when all is said and done, Sidemount would've looked much better for NASA than SLS.
I don't want to get too much into a policy discussion here but with hindsight I find it hard to believe that with the same actors any sort of rocket from that time period would have been successful. Not Shuttle-C, Jupiter, RAC-2, or any flavor of SLS would all have had to deal with the same things that have hobbled SLS. All the SDHLVs assumed a relatively smooth transition from STS. Instead the administration fought against any NASA owned vehicle. Then they delayed implementing the program for a year. Throughout all that time they laid off the STS workforce and scrapped as much infrastructure as they could. Congress gave the program a flat budget forcing wasteful concurrent engineering efforts and has never practiced any oversight other than making sure the money gets spent. Orion now freed from the Ares I mass constraints is still nowhere near being ready to fly even a decade later. If Orion was able to fly back then the we wouldn't have gotten commercial crew, maybe not even COTS, and SpaceX wouldn't be in as good of a position to be working on the BFR.

I just don't see how the number of RS-25 on the bottom, the number or segments in the boosters, or where the cargo sits would have mattered against all that. We can debate which design was better. However the best, most perfect, hardware will always fail if it doesn't have good project management and support of competent leadership. They could have rolled STS right into Not Shuttle-C or Direct but there was no way that was going to happen.

I think the CxP program delays and mismanagement had already made such an ideal transition impossible. And even looking beyond delays, CxP launch vehicles had already abandoned any pretense of a smooth transition from STS (by design). So nothing that the previous administration did when CxP was cancelled would have allowed a smooth transition, it was already too late.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2018 08:59 pm
The question for me now:   Is anyone working on what will come after SLS?   I'm not seeing any light coming from that direction yet, and there needs to be *SOME* payloads after 2020, even in a world where SLS continues.

What do you mean by that?
There are payloads in various stages of design that have not been assigned a launcher.

All of the EM's could definitely be flown on something else.   Atlas, Delta and Falcon could all support LEO, and FH (maybe also DIVH?) can support LLO.   Not even mentioning how Orion's going to look pretty under-spec and over-priced when BFS starts flying.

LOPG is the current "flavour of this administration" (a target which always changes within 12 months of the White House getting a new occupant), but is perhaps the only one with half a chance (probably not even half) of actually flying - and even that I wouldn't bet you three blades of grass on, because I don't see Congress uniting to fund anything after the Mid-Terms.   Regardless, it could still be flown on FH, and a big variant could certainly be done with BFR, and at a fraction of the cost (development and flight).

A single BFS will be substantially bigger and more capable than Skylab-II.   Same argument also eats the Deep Space Hab project.

The "Forward Work" missions are a total waste of time.   I predict that BFS crew missions have high likelihood to be sitting on the surface of Mars and its moons, well before they arrive (2037 earliest) - and at a much lower cost.   Ditto for Mars Sample Return, any NEO missions and Europa, moons of Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Neptune.

High Alt Venus *crewed* mission?   Does anyone here think that's serious *and* worthwhile?   Send a friggin' probe at a fraction of the cost/time.

And after the debacle in costs and schedule related to JWST, I just can't see Congress actually agreeing to follow up with another multi-segment space telescope that pushes the envelope, so LUVOIR is a total pipe-dream.   Even if it did happen, BFR will be able to do it for a lot lower cost.

Assuming that we're talking about solid projects that have some serious funding already allocated to them, not just un-funded plans, have I missed any?

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/19/2018 09:50 pm
So if I understand correctly you are asking if NASA is already planning payloads and missions taking into account (and leveraging) current and expected commercial heavy lift capabilities?

Reusability, reduced costs, distributed lift and new architectures like BFR's second stage/ crewed spacecraft/lander change the very foundations upon which NASA's current exploration plans are built. Are there already studies on how to change the plans accordingly, and to factor in these new capabilities?

I would be interested in this as well.
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?

I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 04/19/2018 09:54 pm
Reusability, reduced costs, distributed lift and new architectures like BFR's second stage/ crewed spacecraft/lander change the very foundations upon which NASA's current exploration plans are built. Are there already studies on how to change the plans accordingly, and to factor in these new capabilities?
Has there been any recent NASA commissioned object which cost under $100000/kg?
(probably not counting food)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/19/2018 10:13 pm
Reusability, reduced costs, distributed lift and new architectures like BFR's second stage/ crewed spacecraft/lander change the very foundations upon which NASA's current exploration plans are built. Are there already studies on how to change the plans accordingly, and to factor in these new capabilities?
Has there been any recent NASA commissioned object which cost under $100000/kg?
(probably not counting food)

And astronauts (even if, maybe, accounting for training costs...)

I believe I know where you want me to go with that, but I think the matter here is not that simple.

Also the fact here is that the foundations are changing, you're already implicitly asking me to tell you how this change would affect NASA's missions, and how much.
Frankly I'm not pretending I can give you an answer, but I doubt you can either. That's why I'm asking if someone at NASA is studying this.

If you want to hear my gut feeling, for what it counts, here it is: yes, with much lower launch costs it's possible to greatly reduce overall exploration mission costs, if your architecture is designed appropriately.

But to confirm this is not my job, nor am I able to do so.

Also the 'changed foundations' aren't only lower launch costs. There are also new planned capabilities (distributed launch, high capacity landers, tugs etc.). Aren't these worth studying and factoring in in your plans?.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2018 10:26 pm
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?

I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?

LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)

Okay, big picture level:

Politicians (WH, Senate, House, Local Gov):   Want to be re-elected, so they like to show how they create/support government program jobs within their districts.   They also respond to lobbying and campaign contributions (in various forms) from big contractors.

One thing to note at this level:   *MEGA* Programs (Apollo, Shuttle, ISS, CxP scale) are interesting to these folk, but when you start to discuss the price tag for typical NASA programs, they sadly garner little real interest beyond lip-service.   That's my personal voice of experience.

Contractors (Boeing, LM, ATK, AR, NG etc.):   Want big-program, steady multi-year contracts that have room for growth.   Development contracts are preferred as there is far less risk.   Flight contracts are okay, but they always expose the company to increased risks when things go wrong (i.e. Northrop Grumman got a lot of bad press that affected its share price recently due to the Payload Adapter failure on Zuma).   Small contracts are welcome too (money is still money, after all), but these companies prefer big flagship programs that they can hang their hats upon.

NASA Management:   Want strong programs that won't be cancelled.   This means figuring out programs that the Contractors will compete for, and which the Politicians will back - and not just initially, but through the long term when the political winds change and when things get delayed.   SLS, Orion and JWST are all examples.

This triumvirate has a lot of push and pull between all the various parties, and it's NASA Mgmt who have the unenviable task of putting together programs and projects that appeal to a majority of the others, ticking all of the boxes above.

The details are even more difficult, as you suddenly have some pretty big personalities involved at various levels, and there are historic grudges and pre-existing agreements that must also be handled.

NOBODY wants to be associated with any big programs that fail!

Sadly, the technical merits of most programs - the stuff most of the folk on this forum are interested in - doesn't usually even get mentioned at these levels.   It is utterly irrelevant.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/19/2018 10:50 pm
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?

I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?

LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)


 ;D I've heard NASA wants it too, again.

As for the rest, and thank you for the patience, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I hear your insight on the decision making, but if you're suggesting they cannot even acknowledge the weakening case for the SLS, and evidence clearly supports this, how can you expect them to be planning for the post-SLS and associated payloads?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: butters on 04/19/2018 11:03 pm
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?

I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?

LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)


 ;D I've heard NASA wants it too, again.

As for the rest, and thank you for the patience, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I hear your insight on the decision making, but if you're suggesting they cannot even acknowledge the weakening case for the SLS, and evidence clearly supports this, how can you expect them to be planning for the post-SLS and associated payloads?

With the amount of money that's been invested in SLS, it's not politically feasible to admit that SLS is at best a short-term bridge to something else. SLS has to be sold as the foundation of NASA's exploration architecture for at least a decade if not more.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/19/2018 11:06 pm
The question for me now:   Is anyone working on what will come after SLS?

Such information and discussion would not be on this discussion thread, so OT. This thread is for the existing program of record.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/19/2018 11:18 pm
It disappoints me so much - SLS could have been a wonderful launcher with great capability. But corners were cut; not using the lighter 4-segment boosters, not using 5x RS-25s in the corestage and not having from the beginning a decently strong upper stage. Dr Steve Pietrobon has recently crunched the numbers and determined that such a booster would have worked out quite well; capability-wise.

That wasn't me but team DIRECT. I've only looked at using RSRMV and other new boosters. Also, with RSRM, you only need four engines on the core as the core is much lighter compared to SLS. Jupiter 246 could put 100.7 t into a 39x320 km delivery orbit. Block IB can put 93.1 t into a 241 km circular orbit. The reduced performance is due to the relatively low thrust of the core and EUS compared to Jupiter.
Sorry, Steven - I may have been talking about your SLS version from your lunar mission paper that had 6x RS-25s on the Corestage.  I don't recall what version boosters you advocated.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/19/2018 11:28 pm
I don't know about NASA's internal dynamics, so I'd love some insight on this, but wouldn't this require at least some official acknowledgment of how the industry is changing and of FH, New Glenn, BFR, ACES as current and future alternatives to the SLS?

I'm confident many inside NASA think about this unofficially, but are there official efforts in this direction?

LOL, so you want the whole moon eh? :)


 ;D I've heard NASA wants it too, again.

As for the rest, and thank you for the patience, I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. I hear your insight on the decision making, but if you're suggesting they cannot even acknowledge the weakening case for the SLS, and evidence clearly supports this, how can you expect them to be planning for the post-SLS and associated payloads?

Think of it like a very large, very complex venn diagram, with everyone's interests intersecting and overlapping in a wild array of colours and sizes.

The programs that actually come together are only the ones where multiple large stakeholders from all three groups have interests that converge.   It doesn't happen often (which is why there aren't a lot of big programs), but when it does they tend to last quite a while, until they either become unmanageable, expensive enough to overpower the whole "too big to fail", or the political level has a major shift before a program can be properly established.

If I were a betting man (I'm not), I would bet that nobody at these levels is planning for anything in the post-SLS world yet.   A bit of "head in the sand" going on here, IMHO.   But te reality can't be put off much longer.   12-18 months, at most, I think.   It would be interesting to see a group of, say, contractors who are aware that the writing is on the wall already, perhaps get together (as far as is legally allowable) and prepare a plan that would be ready to be switched-in at the appropriate moment.

For my mileage, I'd focus on colony equipment (Habs, ISRU tech, Rovers, Space Suits, Power Systems etc.) and prop depot's.   There's more than enough tech that we need developed.   The trick is prioritizing what comes first, then apportioning the work out in an acceptable manner, to all the various centers & companies.   I would also push for RESULTS as the primary objective, and do something to explicitly fight against "make work".

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/20/2018 01:58 am
If I were a betting man (I'm not), I would bet that nobody at these levels is planning for anything in the post-SLS world yet.   A bit of "head in the sand" going on here, IMHO.   But te reality can't be put off much longer.   12-18 months, at most, I think.   It would be interesting to see a group of, say, contractors who are aware that the writing is on the wall already, perhaps get together (as far as is legally allowable) and prepare a plan that would be ready to be switched-in at the appropriate moment.

Do I understand correctly that you are predicting the demise of SLS by the end of 2019?  What is the writing on the wall that you see?

Few in this forum are less impressed with SLS than I, but I do not sense its impending doom.  From the perspective of someone who wants to see NASA accomplish something in space, the SLS program is clearly in deep trouble, with its perennial delays and concomitant cost growth.  But Congress seems quite happy with it, often funding it in excess of administration requests.  The only criticism in recent years has come from a couple of members who are retiring.  If SLS continues to flounder technically and fiscally, it will eventually be canned, but I see no reason to expect that to even begin before 2021 (i.e., after the next two elections).

A recession might change the picture, because with the government now choosing to run big deficits even when the economy is growing, the fiscal picture will probably look very scary if a downturn hits.  But aside from that, I'm not seeing the writing on the wall.  What am I missing?

EDIT:  do -> see in last sentence of 2nd paragraph.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 04/20/2018 02:01 am
I used to have a several hundred page document that pertained to all aspects of the 2009 'Not-Shuttle C' launcher;

...

I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.

FWIW, this is still on L2
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/20/2018 03:11 am
To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name? :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/20/2018 04:40 am
Even better: link. There's no law against linking.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 04/20/2018 05:22 am
Even better: link. There's no law against linking.

What Link?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 04/20/2018 09:34 am
To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name? :)

Here is the L2 thread link:

SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT - 726 Pages - June, 10
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/20/2018 10:57 am
To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name? :)

Here is the L2 thread link:

SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT - 726 Pages - June, 10
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0)
Bless your socks, Bro! :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 04/20/2018 11:16 am
I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.

The key word here is: back-up.

I've been using this (http://www.cobiansoft.com/cobianbackup.htm) for back-up purposes (to an external NAS) for years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/20/2018 01:26 pm
I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.

The key word here is: back-up.

I've been using this (http://www.cobiansoft.com/cobianbackup.htm) for back-up purposes (to an external NAS) for years.
Actually; I managed to retrieve about 70% percent of the files and some were already backed up - just not all. Several folders of downloaded space exploration files were lost and they included the huge, missing Sidemount HLV file. Funnily enough - I only discovered it was missing a few weeks back. In those days, I couldn't afford multiple external hard drives. Now everything is triple-backed up! But let us not digress...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 04/20/2018 05:29 pm
If I were a betting man (I'm not), I would bet that nobody at these levels is planning for anything in the post-SLS world yet. A bit of "head in the sand" going on here, IMHO. But te reality can't be put off much longer. 12-18 months, at most, I think. It would be interesting to see a group of, say, contractors who are aware that the writing is on the wall already, perhaps get together (as far as is legally allowable) and prepare a plan that would be ready to be switched-in at the appropriate moment.

Do I understand correctly that you are predicting the demise of SLS by the end of 2019?  What is the writing on the wall that you see?

Few in this forum are less impressed with SLS than I, but I do not sense its impending doom.  From the perspective of someone who wants to see NASA accomplish something in space, the SLS program is clearly in deep trouble, with its perennial delays and concomitant cost growth.  But Congress seems quite happy with it, often funding it in excess of administration requests.  The only criticism in recent years has come from a couple of members who are retiring.  If SLS continues to flounder technically and fiscally, it will eventually be canned, but I do no reason to expect that to even begin before 2021 (i.e., after the next two elections).

A recession might change the picture, because with the government now choosing to run big deficits even when the economy is growing, the fiscal picture will probably look very scary if a downturn hits.  But aside from that, I'm not seeing the writing on the wall.  What am I missing?

I think that the realization that it is going to fail will take hold within the corridors of power within 12-18 months. How long it will take to change course... Who knows. Based on the Ares-SLS transition, I'd expect at least another year or two of change-over activities before anything is officially on a new path. That's why I think the first flight will probably take place - a last gasp before closure, similar to Ares-IX.

As for what writings on the wall, there are two really big ones that I see coming down the pipe, either of which is big enough to convince the power-brokers that SLS isn't worthwhile any longer.

1) The dreadful flight rate. There is far too long a gap between each of the first 2, 3 even 4 missions being considered (each later one being even less convincing, at least to me). When a launcher is measured in years between flights instead of flights per year, that's a very bad thing, because the press will be all over how much each flight costs. ~18 months worth of cost per flight will make SLS by far the most expensive launcher in history, far more costly than the equivalent of a modern Saturn-V (5 flights in 6 years at ~$2bn/year expenditure will equate to around $2.4bn per flight). Add to that the amount of money burned in development to get to the first flight (~$16bn to December 2019), probably more as I expect more delays) and it will look quite obscene, especially because...

2) BFR/BFS will start flying in a similar time frame +/- a year-ish. SLS is going to take an enormous bashing when the press really grasps the fact that a popular commercial company has launched a bigger, better and far more capable launcher for less than 20% of the cost, and in half the time. SLS and Orion are both going to look pretty stupid at that point. I predict that the political support will dry up then, because they won't want to be associated with such a clear and public example of government waste.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 04/21/2018 12:18 pm
Can anyone -- and that includes you, NASA -- explain the flight schedule of SLS?

Prior to Congress' recent largess, EM-1 was supposed to fly uncrewed followed 3 long years later by EM-2, and the 1B configuration featuring the EUS. There was supposed to be a 3-year hiatus between EM-1 and EM-2 because of the need to modify the launch platform to accommodate the SLS 1B. Lord knows that span would have stretched into 4 or 5 or 7 or 10 years. Or never. Who knows.

BUT, with the funds to build an SLS 1B-capable launch platform, NASA can continue to launch the SLS 1 block with the ICPS upper stage. The launch cadence and EM-2 could be moved up accordingly, which means humans to BEO sooner IF the ICPS is human rated. More time and money.

BUT, then we have Center Director Todd May telling NASA employees about new plans for the first four SLS flights to be on identical rockets (Block 1 presumably) without crew. The first launch would be in 2021 and the first launch with a crew (Block 1B, I guess) would be EM-5 in mid-2020s.

BUT, then the SLS 1 configuration doesn't allow co-manifesting of "gateway" components, so either a dedicated SLS flight, or more likely, a commercial rocket (NG, FH, BFR?) will be used to launch the "gateway."

I mean, whose on first? More money for a dedicated 1B mobile platform could wind up delaying crewed SLS missions. 

Am I missing something? Or is NASA HQ just as confused as I am?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/21/2018 12:27 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 04/21/2018 03:01 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(

Regardless what condition you think the SLS program is in, as a member of the committee that oversees NASA in the House of Representatives Bridenstine would share credit and/or blame for where the program is at today.

So I wouldn't expect him to push for major changes...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 04/21/2018 03:12 pm
Can anyone -- and that includes you, NASA -- explain the flight schedule of SLS?

Prior to Congress' recent largess, EM-1 was supposed to fly uncrewed followed 3 long years later by EM-2, and the 1B configuration featuring the EUS. There was supposed to be a 3-year hiatus between EM-1 and EM-2 because of the need to modify the launch platform to accommodate the SLS 1B. Lord knows that span would have stretched into 4 or 5 or 7 or 10 years. Or never. Who knows.

BUT, with the funds to build an SLS 1B-capable launch platform, NASA can continue to launch the SLS 1 block with the ICPS upper stage. The launch cadence and EM-2 could be moved up accordingly, which means humans to BEO sooner IF the ICPS is human rated. More time and money.

BUT, then we have Center Director Todd May telling NASA employees about new plans for the first four SLS flights to be on identical rockets (Block 1 presumably) without crew. The first launch would be in 2021 and the first launch with a crew (Block 1B, I guess) would be EM-5 in mid-2020s.

BUT, then the SLS 1 configuration doesn't allow co-manifesting of "gateway" components, so either a dedicated SLS flight, or more likely, a commercial rocket (NG, FH, BFR?) will be used to launch the "gateway."

I mean, whose on first? More money for a dedicated 1B mobile platform could wind up delaying crewed SLS missions. 

Am I missing something? Or is NASA HQ just as confused as I am?

The unexpected funding for a second ML has opened up many options. It will take NASA some time to sort out what to do. This is a positive thing, not bad.

Just because NASA could launch four Block 1 before Block 1B doesn't mean they have to. My guess would be EM-1 and one or two cargo flights. Get a head start on LOP-G with SLS or commercial launchers before the first crewed flight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/21/2018 04:39 pm
This is where all those features postponed 'to save money' become anchors holding the program from moving ahead.
Things like ECLSS, EUS, software, human ratings, etc. should have been ready for EM-1 or soon after but they were postponed and the money used elsewhere.  Being simply unable to fly crew until 2025-2026 is a direct result of these management decisions to de-scope or postpone, decisions that will cost vastly more than was 'saved' earlier. 

The program will not go faster with a second mobile launcher... slow is baked in.  Costly is too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/21/2018 04:48 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/21/2018 05:14 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...

That's NASA's job, not some oversight committee's or Congress'.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 04/21/2018 05:38 pm
This is where all those features postponed 'to save money' become anchors holding the program from moving ahead.
Things like ECLSS, EUS, software, human ratings, etc. should have been ready for EM-1 or soon after but they were postponed and the money used elsewhere.  Being simply unable to fly crew until 2025-2026 is a direct result of these management decisions to de-scope or postpone, decisions that will cost vastly more than was 'saved' earlier. 

The program will not go faster with a second mobile launcher... slow is baked in.  Costly is too.

Agreed. If Congress had funded an upper stage from day one, there wouldn't be a need for a lot of this foolishness.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/21/2018 05:51 pm
I think that the realization that it is going to fail will take hold within the corridors of power within 12-18 months. How long it will take to change course... Who knows. Based on the Ares-SLS transition, I'd expect at least another year or two of change-over activities before anything is officially on a new path. That's why I think the first flight will probably take place - a last gasp before closure, similar to Ares-IX.

As for what writings on the wall, there are two really big ones that I see coming down the pipe, either of which is big enough to convince the power-brokers that SLS isn't worthwhile any longer.

1) The dreadful flight rate....

2) BFR/BFS will start flying in a similar time frame +/- a year-ish. SLS is going to take an enormous bashing when the press really grasps the fact that a popular commercial company has launched a bigger, better and far more capable launcher for less than 20% of the cost, and in half the time....

The ridiculously low flight rate has been evident to anyone who bothered to pay attention since 2011.  It's possible that Congress will start to notice in the next year or two, but, absent other factors, I'm not holding my breath.

I agree the BFR/BFS is likely to force a re-examination of Orion/SLS.  But, applying the usual SpaceX time-dilation factor, I'm not holding my breath for that one either.  (As so often when it comes to NASA's HSF efforts, I hope I'm wrong.)  In a somewhat longer run, this does seem the best hope.  Musk may ironically save NASA from itself and Congress.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/21/2018 05:56 pm
Agreed. If Congress had funded an upper stage from day one, there wouldn't be a need for a lot of this foolishness.

It's always the case the SLS could be made useful, if still highly inefficient, with more money.  But I hardly see how just enough more money to fund an upper stage really helps -- there is still the problem of sensible payloads.

At least the related nightmare scenario of SLS never getting an upper stage and flying only to LEO (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22952.0) has never come to pass.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/21/2018 06:55 pm
My hope is they actually forget about EUS for a while and just launch everything on iCPS. EUS looks a heck of a lot like Centaur V/ACES anyway, which ULA is going to build anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 04/21/2018 07:25 pm
My hope is they actually forget about EUS for a while and just launch everything on iCPS. EUS looks a heck of a lot like Centaur V/ACES anyway, which ULA is going to build anyway.

ICPS would have to be human-rated, with additional costs and time delays. Unless more funds are in the offing, the launch cadence won't increase and human rating SLS Block 1 will be postponed.

Cargo SLS 1 flights, including LOP-G elements, look increasingly like a waste of resources given the commercial LVs coming online.

I'd ask how NASA got into this mess, but I know the answer.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/21/2018 08:24 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...

That's NASA's job, not some oversight committee's or Congress'.
It is the job of congressional oversight to ask why a program is behind schedule and costing the "the taxpayers's money" with no return...  It is the head of the agency job to answer. Why do you think they have these committees?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/21/2018 10:08 pm
I'm hoping that Jim Bridenstine can shake things up a little and restore some clarity and sanity to the schedule. Otherwise; this whole project is as cluster-eFFed as it appears to be :'(
That's the job of the oversight committee in congress. I haven't heard much complaining from them about the program. All I ever seem to hear is hype...

That's NASA's job, not some oversight committee's or Congress'.
It is the job of congressional oversight to ask why a program is behind schedule and costing the "the taxpayers's money" with no return...  It is the head of the agency job to answer. Why do you think they have these committees?

Why do you think they have a head of the agency?

Hint: It is the head of NASA's job to see that NASA programs are properly formulated and executed.  This job, if done with any integrity and skill, will mean that the programs are generally on schedule and budget*, and that the taxpayers are getting proper return for their tax dollars.  When he/she fails at this task, the Congressional oversight committees are supposed to do their job and ask him/her why they aren't doing the job they've been given. 

....but this is so astoundingly rare in Washington DC these days, that we've forgotten wtf these people are there for, and expect failure will be 'business as usual'


* for SLS/Orion, the past NASA Admin never published a budget and/or schedule... nicely avoiding the Federal law that requires reporting when a program is seriously over budget/behind schedule. Business as usual.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 04/21/2018 10:33 pm
SLS is a monster of there own creation and that's why they aren't going after it...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/21/2018 10:57 pm
SLS is a monster of there own creation and that's why they aren't going after it...

That's true. 
It is sending buckets of dollars year after year to their districts and favorite defense contractors, so what's not to love?

Still would be a 'nice' change if Bridenstine forced MSFC to define the budget and schedule to get from here (where ever that is) to 130t Block 2 flying 2x per year and Orion 1x per year -- or whatever.  Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda).  Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system. 
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 04/22/2018 12:40 am
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda).  Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system. 
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.

Even if the deep space exploration budget more than quadrupled (from around $4 billion a year today to say $20 billion a year) you wouldn't even get close to $1 Trillion spent by 2050. I don't think your guess is realistic. SLS/Orion are not the cheapest space hardware out there but they are hardly as expensive as some claim.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/22/2018 01:09 am
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda).  Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system. 
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.

Even if the deep space exploration budget more than quadrupled (from around $4 billion a year today to say $20 billion a year) you wouldn't even get close to $1 Trillion spent by 2050. I don't think your guess is realistic. SLS/Orion are not the cheapest space hardware out there but they are hardly as expensive as some claim.

That's the point... you don't know what actually going to the Moon and Mars with SLS/Orion will cost, nor what SLS/Orion will cost through 130t version, when it will be done, etc. 

I* don't either... just judging from the decade or two old estimate of $500B, and how well we've managed progress to date, I think $1T isn't wide of the mark.  Probably optimistic if anything.

Do you see nothing wrong with being on this development path when no one knows what we're going to spend, when we'll get there, or even where we are going?

There won't be these funds to do Moon and Mars, as you say.  I 100% agree.
So, why are we building SLS/Orion at all?  So we can go cruise around 'Deep Space' four weeks at a time?

* Using the royal I here, representing all 100,000,000 taxpayers in the USA.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/22/2018 06:21 am
I'm happy to hear that Congress is funding an additional MLP for Block IB, leaving the first MLP for more Block I missions, in particular the first crewed flight of Orion. Crew rating iCPS is only $150M, which is only a small fraction of the NASA budget. My understanding is that once the Block I missions are completed, the Block I MLP will be converted to SLS cargo missions, with presumably the crewed elements moving over to the new Block IB MLP.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/22/2018 10:47 am
I'm happy to hear that Congress is funding an additional MLP for Block IB, leaving the first MLP for more Block I missions, in particular the first crewed flight of Orion. Crew rating iCPS is only $150M, which is only a small fraction of the NASA budget. My understanding is that once the Block I missions are completed, the Block I MLP will be converted to SLS cargo missions, with presumably the crewed elements moving over to the new Block IB MLP.

Agree that if Block 1 is used to get on with crew flights while ML-2 is being prepared for Block 1B, it will improve the program.  Hopefully that is the way program is headed... but if the crewed flights are to wait for EUS and ML-2, then that advantage will be lost.  Would be encouraging to see a payload plan, schedule, and budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TaurusLittrow on 04/22/2018 11:19 am
I'm happy to hear that Congress is funding an additional MLP for Block IB, leaving the first MLP for more Block I missions, in particular the first crewed flight of Orion. Crew rating iCPS is only $150M, which is only a small fraction of the NASA budget. My understanding is that once the Block I missions are completed, the Block I MLP will be converted to SLS cargo missions, with presumably the crewed elements moving over to the new Block IB MLP.

That's encouraging. Thanks for the information. Can you identify the source.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/22/2018 01:34 pm
Agree that if Block 1 is used to get on with crew flights while ML-2 is being prepared for Block 1B, it will improve the program.  Hopefully that is the way program is headed... but if the crewed flights are to wait for EUS and ML-2, then that advantage will be lost.  Would be encouraging to see a payload plan, schedule, and budget.

We would actually need to see more than that.
We all know that the goal for the out-years remains Mars but that is apparently a decade or 2 away. Where the current focus has been identified is the moon and cis-lunar space while LEO operations are apparently being ceded to commercial providers. So what we actually need is an ESAS-style report detailing the envisioned architecture and goals.

Are LEO propellant depots envisioned? When crew leave for cis-lunar space will they leave from a standard parking/checkout orbit or will they rendezvous with a waiting LEO propulsion module? Will there be lunar orbital stations like LOP-G and what will be their primary function?What kind of landers will be used; single use or reusable? What kind and how many surface facilities are envisioned? What will be the planned power sources and how will they be configured? ISRU will obviously play an expanding role but to what extent; simply to perfect equipment intended for future Mars missions or to make lunar installations more self sufficient? Is mining going to be involved for resource sourcing, and how large an operation will that be? What kind of resources are envisioned being obtained from lunar materials and what kind of facilities need to be constructed to process the various ores? Will the lunar bases be clustered near one location or scattered over different topographies? Will they be clones of each other or will each one serve a specialized purpose? Will the facilities be permanently manned or human-tended? And on and on and on.

The document needs to be flexible enough to adapt to new knowledge, conditions and situations, while at the same time specific enough to give all the stakeholders a very clear idea of where all this is headed, what the goals actually are and a basis to develop supporting budgets.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/22/2018 04:41 pm
My hope is they actually forget about EUS for a while and just launch everything on iCPS. EUS looks a heck of a lot like Centaur V/ACES anyway, which ULA is going to build anyway.

ICPS would have to be human-rated, with additional costs and time delays...
So would EUS, but without any flight history to go on, it'd have a LOT more additional costs and time delays.

Also, regarding my other point, CentaurV/ACES will need to be human-rated anyway for commercial crew.

By far the better option is to can EUS and use iCPS for a while. EUS as it stands now is a totally new stage which hasn't even been designed yet. iCPS already exists (it's sitting in a building right now) and will have flight history.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 04/22/2018 07:53 pm
EUS as it stands now is a totally new stage which hasn't even been designed yet.

Really?  It hasn't even been designed yet?  I though the last couple of appropriations bills included something like $50M for EUS.
Title: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Markstark on 04/22/2018 09:55 pm
EUS as it stands now is a totally new stage which hasn't even been designed yet.

Really?  It hasn't even been designed yet?  I though the last couple of appropriations bills included something like $50M for EUS.

It’s partially designed. It has passed preliminary design review and scheduled for CDR about a year from now. Don’t know what these recent moves will do to that though

https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/major-review-completed-for-new-sls-exploration-upper-stage
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 04/22/2018 11:26 pm
Right, by “designed” I mean CDR.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/24/2018 06:17 am
Oops, I accidentally deleted my post. Anyway, the new NSF article says that NASA plans on using the first MLP eventually for cargo missions.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/

"It is understood that ML-1 would be converted to provide SLS Block 1B with cargo-only mission capabilities."

Source for $150M to crew rate iCPS.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/08/decision-looms-on-when-to-introduce-new-sls-upper-stage/

"...human-rating the Delta 4-based interim single-engine upper stage, an effort NASA officials previously said will cost about $150 million."

Here's the reference the Aviation Week article indicating funding for ML-2 and second iCPS.

http://aviationweek.com/space-symposium/after-clash-house-science-panel-oks-nasa-authorization

"The bill also was amended to call for the construction of a second Mobile Launch Platform at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center for the Space Launch System (SLS) and to assemble a second Interim Cryrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for the SLS. Those are both pacing items for the second test flight of the powerful rocket and the first currently slated to include an Orion capsule with astronauts."
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UKobserver on 04/24/2018 10:53 pm
Is Europa Clipper meant to be deployed from within a payload fairing?

What details have NASA given of that and will it be tested in flight prior to the Europa Clipper launch?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 04/25/2018 02:39 pm
Is Europa Clipper meant to be deployed from within a payload fairing?

What details have NASA given of that and will it be tested in flight prior to the Europa Clipper launch?

No need for a flight test, the fairing will be identical to the one currently flying on Atlas V. Fairings are simple enough that they can be reasonably expected to just work anyway, so even if it was a new design (like the larger fairing for block 1B) they wouldn't do a flight test just for that
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/26/2018 07:09 am
Oops, I accidentally deleted my post. Anyway, the new NSF article says that NASA plans on using the first MLP eventually for cargo missions.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/04/nasas-dual-ml-plan-extra-sls-block-1-missions/

"It is understood that ML-1 would be converted to provide SLS Block 1B with cargo-only mission capabilities."

Source for $150M to crew rate iCPS.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/09/08/decision-looms-on-when-to-introduce-new-sls-upper-stage/

"...human-rating the Delta 4-based interim single-engine upper stage, an effort NASA officials previously said will cost about $150 million."

Here's the reference the Aviation Week article indicating funding for ML-2 and second iCPS.

http://aviationweek.com/space-symposium/after-clash-house-science-panel-oks-nasa-authorization

"The bill also was amended to call for the construction of a second Mobile Launch Platform at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center for the Space Launch System (SLS) and to assemble a second Interim Cryrogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for the SLS. Those are both pacing items for the second test flight of the powerful rocket and the first currently slated to include an Orion capsule with astronauts."
Dr Steven - can you confirm for me if you've ever mathematically modeled an improved ICPS with stretched propellant tanks and a single MB-60 engine, or twinned RL-10C2 engines?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 04/26/2018 07:56 am
Dr Steven - can you confirm for me if you've ever mathematically modeled an improved ICPS with stretched propellant tanks and a single MB-60 engine, or twinned RL-10C2 engines?

I haven't looked at using iCPS using those engine combinations. I've only looked at using two MB-60's or four RL-10C-2's with Dark Knight boosters.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/26/2018 09:22 am
Thanks. Since it now seems that Block 1 SLS is going to become de rigueur for the forseeable future; I wanted to get a head start on figuring out what benefits an upgraded ICPS would have. I very recently noticed that the notional artwork for the Orbital ATK OmegA launcher is portraying what looks like a twin RL-10C Delta-style upper stage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 04/26/2018 02:01 pm
Full program costs, end-to-end (starting with the development money already spent, and including advanced boosters, lots of RS-25 engines, ML-1 and 2, ground crews, yadda, yadda, yadda).  Just for interest sake, NASA might throw in a design set of missions say to the Moon and Mars and what would be that hardware cost and schedule assuming SLS/Orion alone for launch system. 
My guess: $1-1.5T... 2050.

Even if the deep space exploration budget more than quadrupled (from around $4 billion a year today to say $20 billion a year) you wouldn't even get close to $1 Trillion spent by 2050. I don't think your guess is realistic. SLS/Orion are not the cheapest space hardware out there but they are hardly as expensive as some claim.

That's the point... you don't know what actually going to the Moon and Mars with SLS/Orion will cost, nor what SLS/Orion will cost through 130t version, when it will be done, etc. 

I* don't either... just judging from the decade or two old estimate of $500B, and how well we've managed progress to date, I think $1T isn't wide of the mark.  Probably optimistic if anything.

Do you see nothing wrong with being on this development path when no one knows what we're going to spend, when we'll get there, or even where we are going?

There won't be these funds to do Moon and Mars, as you say.  I 100% agree.
So, why are we building SLS/Orion at all?  So we can go cruise around 'Deep Space' four weeks at a time?

* Using the royal I here, representing all 100,000,000 taxpayers in the USA.

Here's an article that confirms 2050 (actually later):
Quote
NASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."
Quote
Pathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: brickmack on 04/26/2018 04:52 pm
I very recently noticed that the notional artwork for the Orbital ATK OmegA launcher is portraying what looks like a twin RL-10C Delta-style upper stage.

I don't see what benefit this would have for iCPS. OmegA's upper stage needs 2 engines because of the rather low staging velocity. Even the Castor 1200 configuration plus the Castor 300, without any strapons, gets it to less than 4.5 km/s by my math. DIVM+ stages a bit faster than that, and DIVH stages over 2 km/s faster. I doubt 6 GEM-63XLs will provide anywhere near the gain of 2 CBCs (though I've not done the math to confirm, since parallel stages are complicated), and the Castor 600 configuration will be even worse off. Either make the upper stage variable sized (like DCSS), which adds cost and GSE complexity, or leave it off entirely on the small-booster variants (huge loss of performance and insertion geometry options, if it works at all) and accept large gravity losses even on the big variants, or add more engines/higher thrust engines.

SLS puts iCPS very nearly in orbit, so ascent losses will be pretty much zero. And thrust doesn't matter much in orbit, beyond ~0.07 TWR. Any reduction in gravity losses would almost certainly be outweighed by the extra few hundred kg of engine/plumbing/structural mass. And unless iCPS's tanks were significantly enlarged (how? A vertical stretch would be similarly complex for GSE upgrades to EUS. Widening the tanks would be a huge design change, and have similar GSE impacts as well. A common bulkhead could help some, but not enough, and thats also a big design change. In either case, you're better off going all the way to EUS or Centaur V/ACES), the staging point isn't gonna drop enough for the extra thrust to matter
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: yokem55 on 04/26/2018 06:20 pm
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 04/26/2018 06:24 pm
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?

Fairly close. Centuar 5 is 5.4 m diameter but will have more exposed tank length. The SLS stage adapter would need to get a little shorter and wider.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rst on 04/26/2018 07:01 pm
I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?

Fairly close. Centuar 5 is 5.4 m diameter but will have more exposed tank length. The SLS stage adapter would need to get a little shorter and wider.

Any adjustment to the MLP?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 04/26/2018 09:33 pm
Here's an article that confirms 2050 (actually later):
Quote
NASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."
Quote
Pathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/

Yepp.  Missions to Mars:  Always 30 years in the  future.


Planning Mars Missions is like saying,  "The troops will be home by Christmas."  No need to specify which Christmas.  In this case just iterate yearly.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/26/2018 11:51 pm
In reply to brickmack; then a propellant increase and only a modest increase in thrust would be a good enough improvement, yes? :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: lrk on 04/28/2018 12:03 am
I very recently noticed that the notional artwork for the Orbital ATK OmegA launcher is portraying what looks like a twin RL-10C Delta-style upper stage.

I don't see what benefit this would have for iCPS. OmegA's upper stage needs 2 engines because of the rather low staging velocity. Even the Castor 1200 configuration plus the Castor 300, without any strapons, gets it to less than 4.5 km/s by my math. DIVM+ stages a bit faster than that, and DIVH stages over 2 km/s faster. I doubt 6 GEM-63XLs will provide anywhere near the gain of 2 CBCs (though I've not done the math to confirm, since parallel stages are complicated), and the Castor 600 configuration will be even worse off. Either make the upper stage variable sized (like DCSS), which adds cost and GSE complexity, or leave it off entirely on the small-booster variants (huge loss of performance and insertion geometry options, if it works at all) and accept large gravity losses even on the big variants, or add more engines/higher thrust engines.

SLS puts iCPS very nearly in orbit, so ascent losses will be pretty much zero. And thrust doesn't matter much in orbit, beyond ~0.07 TWR. Any reduction in gravity losses would almost certainly be outweighed by the extra few hundred kg of engine/plumbing/structural mass. And unless iCPS's tanks were significantly enlarged (how? A vertical stretch would be similarly complex for GSE upgrades to EUS. Widening the tanks would be a huge design change, and have similar GSE impacts as well. A common bulkhead could help some, but not enough, and thats also a big design change. In either case, you're better off going all the way to EUS or Centaur V/ACES), the staging point isn't gonna drop enough for the extra thrust to matter

I recall that the LH2 tank was stretched by 18 inches from DCSS, not sure about the LOX tank.  Source was Tory Bruno on twitter or reddit, I think. 

I wonder if ULA would want to swap the IPCS out for Centaur V when it's ready. Would the dimensions be comparable?

Fairly close. Centuar 5 is 5.4 m diameter but will have more exposed tank length. The SLS stage adapter would need to get a little shorter and wider.

Any adjustment to the MLP?

Yes, the umbilicals are totally different between DCSS and Centaur.  Not sure how much of a performance improvement this would bring since they are similar-ish sizes and the mass decrease would be small compared to the mass of Orion.  The structural analyses would also have to be redone.  I don't see much of a point in changing upper stages yet again for only a couple of flights before EUS is ready. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 04/28/2018 01:25 am
Here's an article that confirms 2050 (actually later):
Quote
NASA budgeting reveals dim hopes for humans going to Mars
“Mars is off the table as far as I can tell."
Quote
Pathways report found that NASA could probably land humans on Mars in the 2050s,...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-budgeting-reveals-dim-hopes-for-humans-going-to-mars/

From the article:

Quote
During a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council in late March, in reference to planning for human deep space missions, Gerstenmaier said, “We’re going to try and live within flat budgets.”

Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 04/28/2018 02:45 am
Building Big in the 'Big Easy'

NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center
Published on Apr 27, 2018

At NASA's Rocket Factory, the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, engineers are building hardware for Exploration Mission-1 -- the first integrated flight of the Space Launch System and Orion spacecraft. They are manufacturing and assembling the rocket's 212-foot core stage, as well as building Orion pressure vessels that hold the crew. Together, SLS and Orion will enable a new era of exploration beyond Earth's orbit, launching astronauts on deep-space exploration missions to the Moon, Mars and beyond.

https://youtu.be/0Ggry9r6UGs?t=001

https://youtu.be/0Ggry9r6UGs
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/29/2018 07:25 am
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.

Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/29/2018 08:17 am
Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/29/2018 11:21 am
Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(

Well, about that... there would be one that coincidentally is designed to be a lander too.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 04/29/2018 11:57 am
Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(

Well, about that... there would be one that coincidentally is designed to be a lander too.
I was deliberately not bringing SpaceX/BFS into this discussion - unless you were - because that's a whole other/new ball game that will shake out in it's own good time, if it does. I was actually taking into account Dragon 2 and Starliner; even though there are no B.E.O. versions of those in the works, that we're aware of. If there were - those would be lower cost alternatives to Orion. Though Orion is a huge, heavy beast for a capsule spacecraft and it's Service Module has too little delta-v to be a worthy successor to the Apollo CSM :(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/29/2018 02:38 pm
I think Zed Noir was thinking about that with 'SLS/Orion replacements on the horizon'.

Good luck reducing costs in a significant way if you want to find 'alternative solutions' but retain the same old

Launcher + separate capsule + separate deep space habitat + separate lander/ascent stage  architecture, in which each one has little commonality, has to be designed, built, tested, certified completely on its own.

The problem with SLS/Orion isn't just the fact that they're expendable, it's also how the whole architecture has been conceived. It's not a sustainable architecture by design.
It was optimized (to a certain degree) in a world were reusability, distributed launch don't exist.

But reusability, being a game changer, needs new solutions and new architectures that leverage the new potentials.

You can't just strap an Orion like capsule on a (partially) reusable rocket to make Mars and the Moon sustainable.

A BFR-like architecture is conceived with reusability in mind and to maximize its potential.

BFR is not a rocket, it's an entire architecture, designed to take full advantage of reusability in reliability, cost reduction and flexibility. It's not only the cost effective alternative to SLS/Orion, but to SLS, Orion and the future landers, habitats that the old architecture would require.

And I'm not talking about if they manage to fly it, I'm not talking about SX's performance, I'm talking about the design itself, which I strongly believe is inherently better for sustainable BLEO missions than any other proposed architecture.

At least that's what I think  (and what SpaceX thinks, most likely).

The question is: is NASA studying this new architecture as a whole?
Because its DESIGN has the potential to address, in a timely manner, every single one of their key problems in HSF, current and future:
1. LOW BUDGET FOR HUMAN EXPLORATION;
2. Difficulty to guarantee sufficient safety standards throughout the missions (it offers was more safety margins than a traditional architecture for a Mars landing, as the whole architecture can be tested relatively cheaply and repeatedly in high fidelity environments);
3. Not having a heavy lift lander/ascent stage for Mars and the moon;
4. Not having a deep space habitat;
5. Lacking a real perspective for the program, which with BFR as a foundation would be scalable and sustainable for scientific exploration, settlement, and eventual colonization;
6. With real perspectives also comes stronger public support, that the program currently LACKS.

Yeah, I think 'SpaceX and BFR' is worth discussing when talking about 'SLS/Orion alternatives' and I would be studying it carefully if I were NASA. It would be foolish not to.

I dare say I wouldn't even just stay there, waiting, and see if SpaceX manages to deliver, I would actively do something to make this happen. Offer support.

I mean, if someone basically offered you on a silver plate what could be the solution to basically each one of your problems you wouldn't straight up ignore it, I think.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Zed_Noir on 04/29/2018 03:23 pm
Getting off topic. Let keep this thread on the SLS. :(  Didn't mention SX to avoid the wrath of the mods.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 04/29/2018 04:15 pm
Eh, if you discuss alternatives you can't really avoid mentioning SpaceX.

If discussing alternatives altogether is off-topic here then I'm sorry  ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 04/30/2018 05:43 pm
Eh, if you discuss alternatives you can't really avoid mentioning SpaceX.

If discussing alternatives altogether is off-topic here then I'm sorry  ;)

Yes it is off topic. This thread was deliberately limited to SLS only.
Thread title makes that clear.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ulm_atms on 04/30/2018 11:46 pm
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread).  Mods move if you know of a better place.

This is an interesting/flame inducing article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/

EDIT:  Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments.  Not trying to start one...I promise!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/01/2018 12:16 am
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread).  Mods move if you know of a better place.

This is an interesting/flame inducing article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/

EDIT:  Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments.  Not trying to start one...I promise!
My first laugh of the day, thanks! ;D
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/01/2018 12:52 am
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread).  Mods move if you know of a better place.

This is an interesting/flame inducing article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/)

EDIT:  Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments.  Not trying to start one...I promise!

O - M - G
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/01/2018 01:20 am
Not exactly sure where to put this(SX or SLS thread).  Mods move if you know of a better place.

This is an interesting/flame inducing article:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/boeing-slams-the-falcon-heavy-rocket-as-too-small/)

EDIT:  Flame inducing as in the FH vs SLS arguments.  Not trying to start one...I promise!

O - M - G

The best part:

Quote from: Eric Berger
There is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.

The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."

Why can't Boeing's marketing team just quote Gerst directly? Linking to a low-quality article that itself has no direct sources is just a small-time look.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rockets4life97 on 05/01/2018 01:41 am
Who is the audience for Boeing's SLS article? Congress?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/01/2018 03:58 am
The best part:

Quote from: Eric Berger
There is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.

The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."

Why can't Boeing's marketing team just quote Gerst directly? Linking to a low-quality article that itself has no direct sources is just a small-time look.

Reminds me of when Time magazine declared Ares I one of the best inventions of 2009 -- and then Utah senator Bennett held a copy of Time up during a committee meeting, as though Time's editors were credible authorities on astronautics.  Or when Gerst pointed to Inspiration Mars's interest in SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33193.msg1151472#msg1151472) to rationalize it.

To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.

Boeing must be worried.  Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: HarryM on 05/01/2018 05:02 am
"Any man who must say, 'I am the king' is no true king." Tywin Lannister
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/01/2018 05:10 am
The best part:

Quote from: Eric Berger
There is one final interesting nugget on the Boeing website. The end of the SLS blurb invites readers to "Learn more about why the SLS is the right choice for NASA" by linking to a news story in the London Evening Standard. This is a conservative British tabloid owned by a Russian oligarch and former KGB agent, Alexander Lebedev.

The author of the Evening Standard story, an online general assignments reporter named Sean Morrison, did not listen to the NASA Advisory Council meeting where Gerstenmaier commented about the SLS' capabilities. Rather, he quoted (without linking) from another news article from the "technology news website Ars Technica."

Why can't Boeing's marketing team just quote Gerst directly? Linking to a low-quality article that itself has no direct sources is just a small-time look.

Reminds me of when Time magazine declared Ares I one of the best inventions of 2009 -- and then Utah senator Bennett held a copy of Time up during a committee meeting, as though Time's editors were credible authorities on astronautics.  Or when Gerst pointed to Inspiration Mars's interest in SLS (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33193.msg1151472#msg1151472) to rationalize it.

To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.

Boeing must be worried.  Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.

With second hand engines SLS Block 1 should have been flying within 4-5 years. It has now used up its head start.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 05/01/2018 07:49 am
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.

Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.

Those won't make up for continuously decreasing purchasing power. "Commercial space" should not be an excuse to starve NASA to death, since it is very far away from being able to take over.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/01/2018 09:04 am
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.

Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.

Those won't make up for continuously decreasing purchasing power. "Commercial space" should not be an excuse to starve NASA to death, since it is very far away from being able to take over.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as "continually decreasing purchasing power". Aside from the 'blip' that is the 2017 budget, NASA's budget has been growing consistently, at a rate above the rate of inflation, every year since 2013. And 2018's budget fully corrects 2017's dip.

If you're talking about sensible and efficient use of the money, I'd agree with you. Didn't we all learn exactly how much 'fat' exists within NASA programs compared with efficient commercial ones, when NASA published this: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf ?

For those unfamiliar, NASA's initial NAFCOM estimate for the development of Falcon-9 if it had been a NASA program, suggested a cost of $3,977m, when SpX says they only spent $300m! That's 13 times more expensive!!    :o :o :o

This document 'amended' their estimates down to 'only' $1,383m, only 4.6 times higher!   ::) ::) ::)

And those figures assume the program stayed on-budget! LOL.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/01/2018 09:09 am

To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.

Boeing must be worried.  Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.

Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/01/2018 10:51 am

To anyone who is paying attention, these pathetic attempts to justify SLS only undermine it.

Boeing must be worried.  Perhaps SLS's remaining life expectancy is shorter than I thought.

Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?

Ross.

No, you are not alone Ross. I remember it vividly. I specifically remember a website, jointly launched by ATK and Boeing, to promote Ares I. It was full of FUD and was launched in response to ever-growing criticism with regards to the technical- and financial trouble that plagued Ares I.


Edit: kudos to Proponent for remembering the website URL (see his post below). Still available thru the Wayback Machine.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/01/2018 04:31 pm
Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?

Ah, yes, "Safe, Simple, Soon."  On line it was www.safesimplesoon.com, if I remember correctly, which persisted after the demise of Ares I -- perhaps watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars (https://watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars/) will outlast SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 05/01/2018 06:44 pm
Am I alone recalling similar sorts of propaganda emanating from the Ares-I (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)., shortly before that program experienced its final RUD?

Ah, yes, "Safe, Simple, Soon."  On line it was www.safesimplesoon.com, if I remember correctly, which persisted after the demise of Ares I -- perhaps watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars (https://watchusfly.com/top-5-reasons-sls-best-rocket-send-americans-mars/) will outlast SLS.

Quote
NOTICE: This domain name expired on 4/1/2018 and is pending renewal or deletion.

Just twelve bucks.

Consulting the archive.
For feb 2011 (https://web.archive.org/web/20110207224918/http://safesimplesoon.com/),
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 05/01/2018 07:17 pm
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/991392463297409027?s=20

Quote
Mark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/01/2018 07:36 pm
The best thing "any" rocket company can do is just shut-up and fly... That goes for all of them...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 05/02/2018 08:11 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/991392463297409027?s=20

Quote
Mark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.

So, an official NASA presentation now assuming iCPS as the upper stage, in stead of EUS. That makes the revert, back to iCPS, more-or-less official.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Star One on 05/02/2018 10:33 am
https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/991392463297409027?s=20

Quote
Mark Geyer filled in for Bill Gerstenmaier for an exploration update at the SSB meeting. Nothing new, but notable that the EM-2 mission profile he showed assumed ICPS upper stage, not EUS.

So, an official NASA presentation now assuming iCPS as the upper stage, in stead of EUS. That makes the revert, back to iCPS, more-or-less official.

I’d say so.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 05/03/2018 03:08 am
Just keep in mind that what came out of NASA as "SLS" barely resembles what the Senate had specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). Sure, it has the solid boosters and uses Space Shuttle main engines. But design-wise and operations-wise, the SLS design that NASA came up with a year after the Act was passed is far different than the SLS that is described in the Act.

Basically, the Act described a beefed up version of the DIRECT 3.0 architecture, but with the payload requirements increased to such a point that Jupiter could not be used as it was then described. Recall that Jupiter 130/246 was designed to use Shuttle personnel, components, infrastructure, and tooling to the maximum extent possible, including 4-segment SRBs and existing ET tooling and techniques. The Jupiter-130 (DIRECT 3.0 version) was specified as being capable of putting 70 tonnes of payload in LEO, and J-246 right at 100 tonnes. The Act called for the SLS core components (without any upper stage) to be able to launch 70 tons of payload to low Earth orbit. And that these same core components, with the addition of an "upper Earth departure stage", to place at least 130 tons into low Earth orbit. So, 70 tonnes probably would have been achievable with Jupiter, but making it to 130 tonnes just by adding an upper stage would have been too much for the Jupiter-246.

The Act as written (inspired by Mike Griffin?) made it conveniently impossible to use the work of the DIRECT effort, uh, directly. And NASA (aka the Obama Administration) was not happy about being directed by Congress to build SLS after they went to all the trouble of canceling Constellation. It was the perfect storm of passive-aggressiveness between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. "You want a rocket? I'll give you a rocket, all right."

So NASA spent a year designing SLS in such a way as to thumb their nose at Congress while also ensuring the maximum amount of contractor hours for all involved. NASA's version of SLS required the use of an upper stage in all configurations. It ignores the Act's requirement to be able to service ISS. It blew past the Act's required operational date of 12/31/2016, now at 12/31/2019 and counting. On the plus side (as far as Congress and Contractors are concerned), it required the 5-segment boosters. It required a super extended stretch of the core. It requires two different ML tower configurations, one for ICPS and one for EUS. It required all new tooling for the core construction. And so on, et cetera, et cetera.

Will SLS ever get off the ground? Who knows. I had great hope for SLS when the Act was signed into law. Then NASA took a year to come up with SLS as we know it now. And here we are, almost eight years after the Act was passed, and SLS delays are growing at a rate of one year per year, just like Constellation. Maybe more, it's hard to tell.

Sigh. Well, there's always you-know-who, who seem to be taking the space business seriously.

Cheers!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/03/2018 12:45 pm
Just keep in mind that what came out of NASA as "SLS" barely resembles what the Senate had specified in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (hereafter referred to as "the Act"). Sure, it has the solid boosters and uses Space Shuttle main engines. But design-wise and operations-wise, the SLS design that NASA came up with a year after the Act was passed is far different than the SLS that is described in the Act.
[snip] ... [/snip]
Sigh. Well, there's always you-know-who, who seem to be taking the space business seriously.


Yea. What he said! :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/03/2018 02:43 pm
I think the Jupiter 246 could hit the 130 ton requirement with multiple J-2Xs and upper stage stretch, and/or a 3rd stage.

Especially if you interpret the requirement as 130 short tons (118,000 kg). Which happens to be exactly what the Saturn V could do.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Mark S on 05/03/2018 04:09 pm
Yeah, I didn't want to get too far off in the weeds. Just trying to shed a little light on how SLS got where it is now. I'm sure many of our newer members missed a lot of the excitement of a decade ago.

But as a wise person once said, sometimes you just have to put your behind in the past.

Cheers!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/03/2018 04:54 pm
Yeah, I didn't want to get too far off in the weeds. Just trying to shed a little light on how SLS got where it is now. I'm sure many of our newer members missed a lot of the excitement of a decade ago.

My God, has it been that long?

Quote
But as a wise person once said, sometimes you just have to put your behind in the past.

Wise words. Focusing too much on past lost opportunities leads directly to missed opportunities because of lack of focus.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: eric z on 05/03/2018 05:12 pm
 Could the moderators please spin-off an SLS-technical aspects discussion/update thread so the handful of us wanting that information don't have to wade thru the endless Money-Schedule-Policy Blues tunes? At a certain point it gets incredibly redundant.
 I'm awfully saddened at the way Orion and SLS have been bungled, and have come around in my thinking in a lot of ways. But there should be even just ONE place I can go that will tell me what's really going on from a technical viewpoint- not flashy Bonging Powerpoints about Mars, or pro-everyone else declarations; just facts about the rocket itself.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Rocket Science on 05/03/2018 05:18 pm
Could the moderators please spin-off an SLS-technical aspects discussion/update thread so the handful of us wanting that information don't have to wade thru the endless Money-Schedule-Policy Blues tunes? At a certain point it gets incredibly redundant.
 I'm awfully saddened at the way Orion and SLS have been bungled, and have come around in my thinking in a lot of ways. But there should be even just ONE place I can go that will tell me what's really going on from a technical viewpoint- not flashy Bonging Powerpoints about Mars, or pro-everyone else declarations; just facts about the rocket itself.
Just read the articles from Chris B/G and Philip and you should be good to go... :)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AnalogMan on 05/03/2018 05:19 pm
Could the moderators please spin-off an SLS-technical aspects discussion/update thread so the handful of us wanting that information don't have to wade thru the endless Money-Schedule-Policy Blues tunes? At a certain point it gets incredibly redundant.
 I'm awfully saddened at the way Orion and SLS have been bungled, and have come around in my thinking in a lot of ways. But there should be even just ONE place I can go that will tell me what's really going on from a technical viewpoint- not flashy Bonging Powerpoints about Mars, or pro-everyone else declarations; just facts about the rocket itself.

Well, the current updates thread here:

SLS Development Stage UPDATE Thread (2)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31740.0 (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31740.0)

BUT, it is for updates only - no discussion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/03/2018 09:20 pm
I think the Jupiter 246 could hit the 130 ton requirement with multiple J-2Xs and upper stage stretch, and/or a 3rd stage.

Especially if you interpret the requirement as 130 short tons (118,000 kg). Which happens to be exactly what the Saturn V could do.

This is OT.

To simply clarify the point raised, I just brushed a LOT of dust off my archive and a J-24x wouldn't have benefited from extra J-2X's. A second had no significant effect on LEO performance, and a third actually reduced LEO performance. Both additions actually reduced final 2-launch TLI performance - which was the key metric - because of the combination of relatively low Isp and added EDS mass, specifically more engines, added thrust structure, plumbing & larger tanking.

An additional stage (particularly powered by high Isp engines like RL-10B-2) would have gotten all variants of J-24x well above 130 tons (>130,000kg was feasible with such an extra stage), but the costs involved in building yet another upper stage would have negated a lot of the core benefits of the architecture. I still feel that the best compromise was just to put the RL-10's straight on the main upper stage; i.e. J-246.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/05/2018 07:49 pm
The Act as written (inspired by Mike Griffin?) made it conveniently impossible to use the work of the DIRECT effort, uh, directly. And NASA (aka the Obama Administration) was not happy about being directed by Congress to build SLS after they went to all the trouble of canceling Constellation. It was the perfect storm of passive-aggressiveness between the Executive and the Legislative branches of government. "You want a rocket? I'll give you a rocket, all right."

Do we know where ICPS came from?  It seems to me that it was a bit of a stroke of genius.  It created the hope that SLS might be able to do something within the foreseeable future that at least looked spectacular, namely sending a NASA crew BEO for the first time since 1972.  Without ICPS, maybe a couple of LEO test flights of Orion would have been planned.  And, of course, officially, Orion was to provide back-up ISS access, but that was always a ridiculous idea, as the passage of time has made even clearer.  Adding ICPS made SLS's potential early missions much more telegenic without adding much cost or delay (ICPS is the very least of the problems).

The Obama administration instigated the Booz Allen Hamilton report (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=38021.msg1432605#msg1432605), which was clearly hostile to SLS.  But that report has proved prescient.  To the extent that SLS's supporters actually cared about using SLS for something worthwhile, they would have been well advised to heed it instead of dismissing it, mischaracterizing it or ignoring it.

So my point is that while the Obama administration did slow Orion/SLS down at the beginning, I don't see that its involvement was nonconstructive.  ICPS, if the administration had anything to do with it, was, under the circumstances, a good idea, and the Booz Allen Hamilton review was accurate.

EDIT:  In penultimate sentence, "it's" -> "its" and "unconstructive" -> "nonconstructive"
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/06/2018 09:46 am
Do we know where ICPS came from?

It came about from the requirements from Congress. An initial version with 70 t payload and a final version with 130 t payload. I think it would have been better if Congress had just specified just one version at 130 t, and provided sufficient funds to get that built.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/06/2018 09:57 am
Do we know where ICPS came from?

It came about from the requirements from Congress. An initial version with 70 t payload and a final version with 130 t payload.

My reading of the law is that SLS must be able to loft 70 t to LEO without any upper stage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/07/2018 05:39 am
It did. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 basically funded DIRECT to be built. The J-130 had no upper stage and easily put 70+ t into LEO. Add the JUS to become the J-240 and it went to 130+ t in LEO.

J-130 payload was 76.8 t, but J-246 (with six RL-10 engines) was only 100.7 t, no where near 130 t.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/07/2018 05:42 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 05/08/2018 01:27 am
<snip>
Flat budgets will effectively kill NASA's human spaceflight program in the long term.

Only if you are on the SLS/Orion pathway. There are cheaper alternatives on the horizon.

Those won't make up for continuously decreasing purchasing power. "Commercial space" should not be an excuse to starve NASA to death, since it is very far away from being able to take over.

I'm not quite sure what you're referring to as "continually decreasing purchasing power". Aside from the 'blip' that is the 2017 budget, NASA's budget has been growing consistently, at a rate above the rate of inflation, every year since 2013. And 2018's budget fully corrects 2017's dip.

If you're talking about sensible and efficient use of the money, I'd agree with you. Didn't we all learn exactly how much 'fat' exists within NASA programs compared with efficient commercial ones...

Well, I was talking about NASA's human spaceflight program, whose budget has decreased in real terms since ~2004 (though it increased before that). Moreover, Gerstenmeier was referring to the future, not the past.

I don't see the exploration program as representative of NASA in general. It's going nowhere because the public and the people who decide on its funding don't care.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/08/2018 01:54 am
There has got to be Landers - crew and cargo - plus surface Habitats, otherwise all the big fancy rockets in the world don't mean much. SLS, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, Vulcan... Without 'Mission Modules' - of which Landers are the most important - there is no mission... :(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AbuSimbel on 05/08/2018 02:12 am
There has got to be Landers - crew and cargo - plus surface Habitats, otherwise all the big fancy rockets in the world don't mean much. SLS, New Glenn, Falcon Heavy, Vulcan... Without 'Mission Modules' - of which Landers are the most important - there is no mission... :(

You keep asking this, the answer remains the same. But apparently it's taboo.

Launchers yes; but not so much the crewed spacecraft :(

Well, about that... there would be one that coincidentally is designed to be a lander too.
I was deliberately not bringing SpaceX/BFS into this discussion - unless you were - because that's a whole other/new ball game that will shake out in it's own good time, if it does. I was actually taking into account Dragon 2 and Starliner; even though there are no B.E.O. versions of those in the works, that we're aware of. If there were - those would be lower cost alternatives to Orion. Though Orion is a huge, heavy beast for a capsule spacecraft and it's Service Module has too little delta-v to be a worthy successor to the Apollo CSM :(


   
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/08/2018 03:53 am
Me? I don't 'keep mentioning' things, unless they are salient. And I'm not the only one who mentions Landers. Chuck Longton has said more than once that in the end; it's all about Landers. So have other people. So what? It's a more than valid subject and opinion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/08/2018 03:57 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
That is what they should have been building from Day One - not all the 'Block 1' etc nonsense. The SLS corestage as originally envisaged had 5x RS-25 on the corestage. You've crunched the numbers and come up with 6x RS-25. Either config, with decent upper stages, starts to get great payload into LEO and BLEO - making the throwing away of all that magnificent hardware each time a bit easier to justify.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/09/2018 02:33 am
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: catdlr on 05/09/2018 02:40 am
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).

Here is that on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/YpHdJKn8PzU?t=001

https://youtu.be/YpHdJKn8PzU
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 05/09/2018 02:49 am
Thanks - I was having trouble adding it as an attached file, for some reason. I compressed the videofile above to a small size and edited out the several second sequence showing a 'Block II' on the Pad first.

EDIT: I often these days try not to use YouTube links on principal, as it is full of anti-space, anti-science, flat earth garbage and people who rant and rave about how we should be using warp drive, anti-gravity that 'NASA is hiding' and magic E.M. drives. Sheesh. Don't read the comments sections - they will draw you into a weird, parallel dimension... ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Verio Fryar on 05/09/2018 10:55 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/09/2018 11:08 am
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).

Pure speculation:

* To reduce near-term costs, in particular by delaying the need to re-start production of RS-25's;
* In the long run, to justify a contract for advanced SRB's in order to meet the 130-tonne payload requirement.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/09/2018 11:16 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?

Don't you know? The US has lots of money. The FY2018 budget is $4,094B. I estimate the total development and hardware cost for 11 missions to be $40.8B, or $4.08B per year over 10 years. That is only 0.1% of the Federal budget.

Also, out of all the versions that will get you at least 130 t of payload, this one was the cheapest. Its powerful enough to a do a Lunar landing in a single launch and a Mars mission using only three launches.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 11:20 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?

Don't you know? The US has lots of money. The FY2018 budget is $4,094B. I estimate the total development and hardware cost for 11 missions to be $40.8B, or $4.08B per year over 10 years. That is only 0.1% of the Federal budget.
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/09/2018 11:21 am
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.

iCPS is too small and has too high a boiloff rate.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 11:26 am
ICPS would work as the third stage, so all you need to develop is the large second stage. It should be cheaper than that.

iCPS is too small and has too high a boiloff rate.

Use the second stage to start TLI, iCPS to finish it. It's baselined for a ~2 hour coast in LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/09/2018 11:35 am
Use the second stage to start TLI, iCPS to finish it. It's baselined for a ~2 hour coast in LEO.

You are then left with a big uncontrolled stage in LEO. This version stages just before LEO insertion, so the second stages re-enters and burns up. The third stage also does Lunar orbit insertion and 75% of powered descent, so it needs to be low boiloff.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 05/09/2018 11:52 am
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
A three stages plus boosters rocket? How could this be affordable?

Don't you know? The US has lots of money. The FY2018 budget is $4,094B. I estimate the total development and hardware cost for 11 missions to be $40.8B, or $4.08B per year over 10 years. That is only 0.1% of the Federal budget.

Also, out of all the versions that will get you at least 130 t of payload, this one was the cheapest. Its powerful enough to a do a Lunar landing in a single launch and a Mars mission using only three launches.

These are all expendable stages, right?
Not worth one dime.  (And it won't happen, thankfully.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Prettz on 05/09/2018 01:21 pm
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
If you're gonna go with 3 stages, I know of a better design that also gets 140t to LEO...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 02:33 pm
This baby will get you 140 t to LEO. :-)
If you're gonna go with 3 stages, I know of a better design that also gets 140t to LEO...

SLS is already really 2.5 stages counting the boosters, adding another upper stage would be 3.5 stages.

That is the problem with a ground-lit core stage and big SRBs. Because of the inefficient solids it takes 3.5 stages to outperform a simpler 3-stage design of similar gross size without solids.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/09/2018 03:17 pm
Use the second stage to start TLI, iCPS to finish it. It's baselined for a ~2 hour coast in LEO.

You are then left with a big uncontrolled stage in LEO. This version stages just before LEO insertion, so the second stages re-enters and burns up. The third stage also does Lunar orbit insertion and 75% of powered descent, so it needs to be low boiloff.

Sounds more like ACES then. Maybe with a little stretch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/09/2018 07:57 pm
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why?

There was a discussion here on NSF but I can't locate it at the moment. As I recall it came down to extending the number of flights by flying less engines. The video you showed had (iiirc) a 10 meter core. I could be wrong about that though. Redesigning to a 7.4 meter core (Shuttle/DIRECT), 4xRS-25's became viable again.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: russianhalo117 on 05/09/2018 08:15 pm
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why? (I have my suspicions/theories).

Pure speculation:

* To reduce near-term costs, in particular by delaying the need to re-start production of RS-25's;
* In the long run, to justify a contract for advanced SRB's in order to meet the 130-tonne payload requirement.
In photos from psloss the SLS core stage engine section has 5 holes for RS25s of which the center hole has a bolted in plug. By having 4 engines they didnt have to modify the center engine to be fixed or have a restricted gimbal range as well additional thermal protection. There are additional reasons whicj i will not blist in this post.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 05/09/2018 08:21 pm
I've found the original NASA video from 2011 that portrays the first iteration of SLS. It did indeed have 5x RS-25s on it. I may have missed the reason they went down to only 4x engines. Can anyone summarize why?

There was a discussion here on NSF but I can't locate it at the moment. As I recall it came down to extending the number of flights by flying less engines. The video you showed had (iiirc) a 10 meter core. I could be wrong about that though. Redesigning to a 7.4 meter core (Shuttle/DIRECT), 4xRS-25's became viable again.

8.4m :)

And partly, they also decided to delete the engine-out option too.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/13/2018 03:26 pm
This Spaceflight Insider article  (http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/as-slss-block-1-design-matures-its-capabilities-come-into-clearer-focus/)has NASA claiming SLS BLock 1 performance to be much higher than originally listed:

Quote
NASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”

25 tonnes is a significant "refinement" - 35% increase.
ULA also uses this orbit as a reference, their difference in payloads between that and ISS orbit is only up to 10%. It is very unlikely that the increase is merely due to quoting performance at a less challenging orbit.
*EDIT* Looking in the Space Access 2014 document, the 70 tonne LEO orbit shown is actually for a 100x975nmi (nautical miles) - or 185x1800km.

Quote
According to the agency: “NASA’s early analyses of launch windows for Europa Clipper in 2022, 2023, 2024, or 2025 indicate that direct trajectories are feasible for SLS Block 1. Further analyses are expected to confirm these early findings with the possibility of some minor configuration modifications. June 2022 is the earliest launch window. Each launch window is about 30 days, each window can get the spacecraft to Europa in 2.5 to 2.7 years, and each window can support a mass for Europa Clipper of at least 6 metric tons.

Older documents on SLS (https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2014-4021) show a payload mass of 4.38 tonnes on a direct injection flight to Jupiter in 2022.
37% increase.
*Other documents from 2014 (https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Creech_SLS_Deep_Space.pdf) show Jupiter/Europa performance as 6 tonnes so maybe this information isn't new.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/13/2018 05:32 pm
It's nice to put a figure to it, but we've always known Block 1 LEO performance was better than 70 tonnes. Don't expect a commensurate increase in performance to higher orbits.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: GWH on 05/13/2018 05:39 pm
I doubt this was a new revelation to NASA on capabilities - which is really odd. With how many comparisons have been made to other rockets, why understate the capabilities or list them to such an oddball orbit?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/13/2018 06:16 pm
Either because it reveals why SLS is 5 years late to IOC (because NASA is building a much larger vehicle than required by the 2010 Act), or because it emphasises how inefficient Block 1 is to higher orbits despite multiple high energy stages.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/14/2018 02:02 am
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010.  Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes?  It was never clear.)

From Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302, showing only the two paragraphs that talk about capabilities:

Quote
(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.

(B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.

What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal.  This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage).  Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.

Other than talking about "Flexibility" to allow an evolutionary growth, the only other specifics that Congress delineated was:

Quote
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and developed, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow-on Space Launch System.

So no, Congress was not as specific as you suggested.

Why? Because there were no specific studies that Congress asked NASA to recommend. And Congress did not hold any hearings, or ask NASA for their opinion about what the SLS should be.

I hate to keep reminding everyone about this, but if it wasn't true then someone, at some point in the past 8 years, would have found the technical documents that Congress relied upon to define the SLS. But there are none.

Based on what was written in S.3729, and trying to interpret the intent of Congress, NASA and Boeing came up with what we have today.

Quote
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!.  The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.

Yet Congress specifically used low-Earth-orbit as a measurement, so you'll have to argue that point with them...  ;)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 05/14/2018 04:52 am
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .

    What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal.  This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage).

And would require just about as much work as SLS does. Those studies like direct were at best first order. It is like saying if I put a more powerful engine in my car it would go faster. Well true, but can the engine fit under the hood and can the body support it? What about the power train, braking, center of gravity, suspension, wheel base, fuel economy(or millage per tank)and so forth. The shuttle was designed with a different purpose in mind reusable space plane not HLV. It was designed using technology and assembly methods from the 70ies and to expect it to be easy to mold into a rocket appropriate for the 21st centaury is wishful thinking.


 For instance if the tank is the same diameter as the ET is there enough space to allow both for structure to support the stage and payload on top as well as contain enough propellant to get to orbit? Wouldn't the rocket require extra strength as the shuttle ET has no loads from the top. Would the metal that the ET is built out of be strong enough to do the job?

The RSSRB do not put out constant thrust the whole time of the flight. At time the amount of thrust increases or decrease in a predesigned fashion. At a minimum the SRB thrust profile would have to change. If the core stage plus 2nd stage and payload massed more than the shuttle it is likely the SRB would not have enough thrust since in the shuttle they sorta balance the mass of the ET(as the shuttle would be unable to lift off with a full tank and by the time the tank was light enough for lift off there wouldn't be enough propellant in it to make it to orbit). If the core stage ,2nd stage and payload are lighter than the shuttle you could experience too much acceleration. Not to mention the only way they would be recoverable without changes to the system is if the rocket staged the SRB at the exact same height and speed as the shuttle(unlikely). Oh and metallic casings for solids are considered obsolete.

Also it really does not matter if the rocket used 3 SSME engines or 110 outside of wanting to use up existing inventory. The rocket would need new avionics as the shuttle's avionics are mostly in the shuttle itself and were reused. Unless all the parts of the controller were still in production a new controller for the SSME would have been needed as the old ones would eventually be exhausted.



Quote
But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!.  The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.

 - Ed Kyle

Without  a mission no one can say what is or is not a useless piece of information. LEO is  perfectly good spot to stage a Mars mission, an NEO mission, or an moon mission that would make the Saturn V look about as powerful as an model rocket. But with no mission(at the time) driving the requirements of the rocket well any old number will do I guess.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/14/2018 05:22 am
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010.  Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes?  It was never clear.)    What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal.  This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage).  Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.

But NASA skipped "4/3" and went directly to "5/4" (with an upper stage).  The Agency still talked about the obsolete "Phase One" 70 ton(ne) goal to LEO nonetheless, from the outset, for some reason. 

Anyone who paid attention - and we did here at NasaSpaceFlight - knew full well that SLS as we now know it could, if it needed to do so, lift far more than 70 tonnes to LEO.

But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!.  The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.

 - Ed Kyle

While I disagree with some points, I do agree that NASA and the contractors probably did undersell performance in order to justify the upgrades that led to the current SLS situation. (perhaps this was not your main point, but that's how I connect the dots)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 05:52 am
Quote
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .

What is the deal with posts like that?

Why does everyone think there is always some magic bullet solution for all this stuff?

The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..

HOWEVER

At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP. On top of that you had a white house that either outright did not care, or wanted to shutdown NASA entirely but was unable to risk doing that so they opted for hamfisted garbage instead. Which in turn forced Congress to get directly involved and literally legislate how to build a rocket, something that should never, EVER have been necessary. 

SLS was a product of the time, and it could have been avoided entirely if things had not been so unbelievably screwed up for literal decades leading up to the collapse of CXP. It was created to solve the political problem of the time and to attempt to keep NASA alive, as well as to attempt to solve the BEO  launch vehicle problem as best as possible within the bounds of still solving the political problems.

It could have worked, potentially, if it had been done in a phased manner, if CXP had been restructured far sooner, and if about a hundred other things had happened differently. Even now it could still work, it will just be so outrageously expensive it won't work long term and will likely be superseded by commercial vehicles.

I don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.

If you want a magic bullet, here is the magic bullet and the moral of this story. Don't let morons ruin your space program repeatedly. Every single follow on program/attempt to STS from beginning to CXP failed for the same reasons, because of a handful of idiots over-ruling the actual science and engineering, and the budget realities so they could play bureaucratic god in their own little worlds. Every single time it was the same story, it happened multiple times not just once. Even STS had some of this in that the original design morphed into what was the shuttle because of political pressure and bad decisions.

People need to start learning from the past here. Given the current situation the best way forward would be a commercialized COTS/CRS style BEO program in which NASA uses the same method for contracting the LV and spacecraft but for BEO instead of LEO. But this is almost certain not to happen because you have some of the same group of idiots ""advising"" certain congress people right now as you did during CXP.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 06:02 am
Everyone needs to dig back to 2010.  Congress specified a Phase One effort to provide 70-plus tons to LEO (or was it tonnes?  It was never clear.)    What was clear back then was that an "inline" core built using Shuttle External Tank (ET) tooling, powered by three Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), boosted by a pair of four segment reusable solid rocket boosters (RSRBs), had been shown, repeatedly during studies, capable of lifting more than 75 tonnes directly to LEO, easily meeting the Senate's initial 70 tonne SLS goal.  This was called the "4/3" model (4-segment SRBs, 3 SSMEs, no upper stage).  Congress might have been expecting this design when it wrote its bill.

But NASA skipped "4/3" and went directly to "5/4" (with an upper stage).  The Agency still talked about the obsolete "Phase One" 70 ton(ne) goal to LEO nonetheless, from the outset, for some reason. 

Anyone who paid attention - and we did here at NasaSpaceFlight - knew full well that SLS as we now know it could, if it needed to do so, lift far more than 70 tonnes to LEO.

But these LEO numbers have always been useless pieces of information regardless, because SLS is not going to LEO!.  The proper metric is escape velocity payload, or similar.

 - Ed Kyle

While I disagree with some points, I do agree that NASA and the contractors probably did undersell performance in order to justify the upgrades that led to the current SLS situation. (perhaps this was not your main point, but that's how I connect the dots)

Five segement solid rocket boosters were never needed.

A new upper stage engine (j2x) was never needed.

A four engine baseline core stage was not needed.


We could have built this rocket in 2006. People who are rehashing how we got here are forgetting what happened and why. You can't just omit all the nonsense that went and on then sit here and ask "oh gee why didn't we do this oh man SLS is so awful why is it so awful people are stupid".

The program is bad because it had to be cobbled together from the burned out remains of a legacy of previously bad programs run by incompetent people. And because a bunch of congress people had to come up with it since:

The agency itself was headless and totally despondent at the time
The President would rather have just killed it
There was no leadership at all
Previous leadership had spent 8.8 billion dollars and produced nothing but heartbreak. To say nothing of venture star and NLS.


Apologies to everyone here if I sound toxic but this really irritates me. We didn't get here for no reason, many mistakes were made and decisions had to be made based on what was available given the context of those mistakes. All of this non-withstanding we can still fix what we have but the best way would be to cancel SLS and use the money for COTS style BEO, or at least something similar. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 06:23 am
There's a lot of legitimate criticisms of the SLS that should and have been made over the years.
However, I won't wish ill upon the program because I know that a very likely replacement for the program
is absolutely nothing! There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation recognize this and have given modest support to SLS/Orion.

It could very well come to pass that humans Beyond Low Earth Orbit gets indefinitely postponed or axed.
That would be terrible. It would also be dreadful for the commercial companies pursuing deep space exploration and Musk mentioned in his 2016 speech that he hopes NASA doesn't cancel its current efforts.

I went back and cherry picked this for a reason, last thing by me for right now on the topic.

Quote
There no political reason why Congress would all of a sudden transfer SLS's budget over to anyone's pet architecture.

There is in fact a political way to do this. But the people who are in a position to advocate for it are totally missing the concept or aren't interested, and austerity is coming soon either way, anybody paying attention to the Federal Reserve should be aware of this by now. But no, there is in fact a political way to transfer the "split amongst every state" contracting methodology to a commercial program in a way that would allow the political spaceflight lobby to continue to exist and would still fully fund a proper program and actually get something done.

And the way you do this is, you don't down-select to two commercial providers, you work to keep as many as you can when you do the COTS style program. Multiple companies=multiple states=multiple supply chains=the world keeps going around in congress. The only thing NASA has proven in the past few years is that they have absolutely no idea how to manage commercial programs, COTS/CRS and commercial crew are/have succeeded in spite of NASA management not because of it. Commercial crew is a perfect and outrageous example, were it not for endless bogus Agency requirements we would have ended the HSF gap years ago as we should have to begin with, this and endless "downselects". They shot themselves in the foot big time.

Clearly the problem is not limited to this, they clearly have no idea how to manage any programs if JWST and SLS are anything to go by but I could list others.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 05/14/2018 10:35 am
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove....

In 2010 ULA, which was at the time the USA's most credible rocket builder, offered derivatives of the Atlas V and Delta IV with LEO capacities up to 140 tonnes (see 2nd & 3rd attachments to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1251621#msg1251621))..
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 05/14/2018 02:44 pm

I'm not sure different historical scenarios with different Shuttle-derived HLVs would have changed the ultimate outcome.

It really doesn't matter whether the vehicle is inline or sidemount, how many SSMEs it employs, or whether it uses 4- or 5-segment SRBs.  No matter the technical decisions, the vehicle still _must_ fully employ the old STS workforce and fully utilize the old STS infrastructure.

And that means we're still stuffing a ~$3-5 billion per year program into a ~$1-2 billion per year bag.

And when you try to do that, you wind up with the gross safety compromises, year-for-year delays, programmatic dithering, ground equipment screw-ups, unaffordability, and incompetent flight rate that we see in SLS today and Constellation previously.

There are only two ways out of this dilemma:

1) Ramp down/phase out/retire/RIF the old STS workforce and infrastructure.  (Politically unacceptable as a whole.)

2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings.  (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)

I suspect the actual way out, if it ever emerges, will be a combination of these two.

There is an old military saying that "Amateurs talk about tactics, generals study logistics."

The NASA parallel would be something like "Amateurs talk about vehicle configurations and rocket engines, managers change the workforce and infrastructure."

There's nothing wrong with armchair aerospace engineering.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves either.

A serious discussion about fixing NASA's human space flight program would focus on workforce and infrastructure and not fixate on vehicle configurations and rocket engines.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/14/2018 04:58 pm

I'm not sure different historical scenarios with different Shuttle-derived HLVs would have changed the ultimate outcome.

It really doesn't matter whether the vehicle is inline or sidemount, how many SSMEs it employs, or whether it uses 4- or 5-segment SRBs.  No matter the technical decisions, the vehicle still _must_ fully employ the old STS workforce and fully utilize the old STS infrastructure.

And that means we're still stuffing a ~$3-5 billion per year program into a ~$1-2 billion per year bag.

And when you try to do that, you wind up with the gross safety compromises, year-for-year delays, programmatic dithering, ground equipment screw-ups, unaffordability, and incompetent flight rate that we see in SLS today and Constellation previously.

There are only two ways out of this dilemma:

1) Ramp down/phase out/retire/RIF the old STS workforce and infrastructure.  (Politically unacceptable as a whole.)

2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings.  (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)

I suspect the actual way out, if it ever emerges, will be a combination of these two.

There is an old military saying that "Amateurs talk about tactics, generals study logistics."

The NASA parallel would be something like "Amateurs talk about vehicle configurations and rocket engines, managers change the workforce and infrastructure."

There's nothing wrong with armchair aerospace engineering.  But we shouldn't kid ourselves either.

A serious discussion about fixing NASA's human space flight program would focus on workforce and infrastructure and not fixate on vehicle configurations and rocket engines.

Between SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion, the Exploration Systems Development budget is a solid $3-$4 billion per year, not the $1-$2 billion that you posit.

Shuttle functioned well enough on that kind of budget, and actually flew missions to boot.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 05/14/2018 05:08 pm


The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..

Again you are going from a reusable vehicle to a disposable one. To build the Orbiter Atlantis it took from March of 1980 till April of 1984 according to NASA’s website. A SDHLV is going to need much of the same systems as the shuttle.  In addition, most expendable rockets are ordered at least 2 years before the mission.  To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place. For instance a lox/kerosene first stage ala Saturn V and Falcon 9 and Atlas would make for a smaller more compact first stage as well as eliminate the reason for the SRB and make for a cheaper vehicle to operate but politically that was not viable. To give you an idea of the difference between the Shuttle and Saturn V, the Shuttle system actually masses more dry than the Saturn V. The VAB floor as well as the Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle it. The Saturn V would mass more wet but it wouldn’t do so until it was at the pad and filled with propellant. Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).


Quote
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.   

Atlas V was in existence at the time of CXP and has sent cargo and will soon send crew to the ISS. The first goal of CXP was to send crew and cargo to the ISS not send people to the moon. Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies. The only difference between humans and cargo is that one is a bit more delicate than the other.


Quote
II don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.

Any SDHLV would have required lots of new hardware and there was little of CXP to leverage.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 06:47 pm
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove....

In 2010 ULA, which was at the time the USA's most credible rocket builder, offered derivatives of the Atlas V and Delta IV with LEO capacities up to 140 tonnes (see 2nd & 3rd attachments to this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35525.msg1251621#msg1251621))..

I mentioned that in my post. This proposal was a good one but it had major pitfalls. The main pitfall being those rockets did not exist yet, they would have to be built and test and most of them would require almost all new hardware. It would be like starting over again from scratch and the potential for delays and cost overruns would have been very high. The other problem is that the contracting structure that has preserved the spaceflight lobby would have been at risk under that proposal, because you would be down-selecting to basically a "single" contractor in that only ULA and facilities directly involved with ULA would get the monies, and therefore only those districts/states would benefit.

We have talked about the political problems, but here is one of the programmatic problems. At the time you had billions of dollars of shuttle hardware sitting around everywhere as STS was winding down, as well as related tooling. You also had billions of dollars of tooling for CXP and leftover components. Going with the ULA proposal would have meant scrapping all of this, and nobody was prepared to do that most especially Congress. This was a key underpinning of the original argument for SDHLV, was that we were going to preserve as much of the CXP and STS workforces as possible, as well as re-using as much of the tooling and hardware as possible.

Because NASA under the previous leadership apparently decided that the law did not apply to them, and because of CXP goons at the Agency and MSFC acting like giant bullies, none of these things happened, including the parts that were supposed to be mandated by law. NASA did the absolute best it could to destroy shuttle tooling, infrastructure, and hardware without waiting for Congress to mandate SLS, to fire and force out the remaining work-forces of both programs, and to general waste as much time as possible. Then when they finally did set about building the vehicle it had morphed into a monstrosity that required brand new everything just like Ares V would have, with the ONLY exception being the main engines.

It was mandated BY LAW that they avoid doing many of the things they have since done. It was mandated BY LAW that they come in on time and under budget. It was mandated BY LAW that the baseline vehicle be online by the end of 2016. As you can see none of these things happened. I said something at the end of the final DIRECT thread years ago:
Quote
Nasa will do as its told from now on or it will cease to exist. It nearly did this time around. There won't be a second chance. They either stay in budget and on time or they go away: Its that simple.

Is there anyone here who thinks they have stayed within the law or the budgets or even the design that was laid out post Aug. Com. in the space act or anything that has come since? They haven't. They did the same thing they did during CXP. Its absolutely insane, but this go around when SLS is cancelled there will be no follow on program to bail them out. Will NASA cease to exist? It depends largely on what the Federal Government does or doesn't do in relation to the national deficit. If things continue in the direction they are currently going, it is likely we will default sometime in the late 2020s. If that happens, or even if it comes close to happening, it does not matter who is in power at the time. They will be forced to enact austerity measures and rapidly decrease federal spending, and folks I can tell you right now those cuts are not gonna come from the entitlement programs first, they will come from the discretionary budget. NASA has a giant target on its back right now, and there are things that could be done RIGHT NOW to fix this or at least mitigate it, but as Ross already said early they have a major case of head in the sand ism right now and so does the congressional space lobby.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 07:06 pm


The vehicle we got in SLS is NOT what DIRECT advocated for. It never was. It was far larger, more costly, and more complex than what direct proposed, and by the time all the damage from Griffin and the Obama administration's waffling was undone what we were left with in 2011 was something that had far exceeded the purpose of using SDHLV in the first place. Even for all that, it still could have worked were it not continuously grown in size and the flight rate reduced due to an absolutely piss poor budget and jackass contractors and their friends in the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words)..

Again you are going from a reusable vehicle to a disposable one. To build the Orbiter Atlantis it took from March of 1980 till April of 1984 according to NASA’s website. A SDHLV is going to need much of the same systems as the shuttle.  In addition, most expendable rockets are ordered at least 2 years before the mission.  To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place. For instance a lox/kerosene first stage ala Saturn V and Falcon 9 and Atlas would make for a smaller more compact first stage as well as eliminate the reason for the SRB and make for a cheaper vehicle to operate but politically that was not viable. To give you an idea of the difference between the Shuttle and Saturn V, the Shuttle system actually masses more dry than the Saturn V. The VAB floor as well as the Crawlers had to be beefed up to handle it. The Saturn V would mass more wet but it wouldn’t do so until it was at the pad and filled with propellant. Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).


Quote
At that time it was literally THE only thing we had. At all. The commercial sector was still nascent and had much to prove, the enemies of any spaceflight funding continuing beyond shuttle were all around, and there was absolutely no possible way to save the abortion that was CXP.   

Atlas V was in existence at the time of CXP and has sent cargo and will soon send crew to the ISS. The first goal of CXP was to send crew and cargo to the ISS not send people to the moon. Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies. The only difference between humans and cargo is that one is a bit more delicate than the other.


Quote
II don't understand why people want to play this game and act like everything was so easy and there was some obvious alternative solution, there were none. Every possible one was considered and at that time SDHLV was about the only thing standing between some very angry goons and the remaining NASA budget post CXP. And that includes the commercial funding, no NASA no commercial funding. The only possible alternative that might have worked out better would have been going with the ULA ACES and expanded EELV proposals, but these would have had major pitfalls of their own and would have required alot of new hardware, and would have leverage exactly none of what CXP had left over.

Any SDHLV would have required lots of new hardware and there was little of CXP to leverage.

The space shuttle was not re-usable. It was partially re-furbishable at best, and the re-refurbishment was ungodly expensive and complex.  A truly re-usable system did not exist at the time and the expanded EELV proposal did not involve re-usable boosters, nobody had yet made an attempt at a fully re-usable booster and nobody at the time had any reason to think SpaceX would succeed, in fact to the contrary the evidence suggested they were going to fail catastrophically. There was no re-usable LV to hang your hat in at the time and there was no solid ground to suggest any would come, people really underestimate the magnitude of technical achievement by SpaceX and BO in creating re-usable boosters. It was thought not to be possible. Thus it is a moot point.

Quote
To expect the same flight rate for the same money as the shuttle disposing of expensive shuttle parts is a bit much. And the complexity as well as size have a lot to do with being a SDHLV in the first place.

That is correct given the vehicle that we got. It is incorrect given the vehicle that was proposed.

Again, the entire point, cost benefit argument, and operational gap closing argument, that underpins why to use an SDHLV was:
1. Retain shuttle and CXP workforces as much possible. Reduce delays in process, testing, design, and execution by keeping experienced people.
2. Retain shuttle and CXP tooling as much possible. Reduce the need to build new production facilities or completely re do the existing ones.
3. Re use existing shuttle hardware and continue using similar designs with minimal design changes being introduced in a phased and staged approach. This minimizes the need for working outside the existing knowledge base and saves massive amounts of time and money since you can keep building things you know how to build, have the machines to build, and have the people to build for the most part.
4. Salvage as much of CXP as possible to save some of the wasted billions. In this case the only thing that really should have been saved is Orion, but we know how this turned out ATK forced the issue.
5. By doing all of the above, have a baseline 70 MT vehicle online and flying cheaply and quickly. By doing this last part especially you save money for both payloads and phasing in upgrades to the LV later on for bigger mission profiles. ALSO, should anything go wrong with your program, doing this would enable you to had least have a functioning and flying LV that you understand the cost and technical side of well. With that 70MT LV you can still do alot, and you could even do a propellant depot proposal such as ACES with that vehicle if you had no other options.


How many of these things did NASA do? Some, not all, but some were mandated by Congress. NASA did exactly none of these. Because of the political fight over the transition from the end of CXP there was probably no hope of doing most of the hardware and work force salvage by the time things actually started to happen.

Without these things there is no reason to have or use an SDHLV. It ceases to be shuttle derived and instead becomes Ares V *again*, essentially a brand new launch vehicle from the ground up, that requires brand new GSE brand new everything in all parts of its life cycle.  SLS is not an SDHLV its Ares V.

Quote
Ares 1 was not needed and only served the political goal of keeping the shuttle workforce around.  Commercial space has existed since the late 80ies\early 90ies.
It did not do this and was intended to serve the political goal's of ATK and Mike Griffin and Co only. It would not have kept shuttle workforce around because of it's delays.

Commercial space cannot and could not do BEO without entirely new vehicles. And primarily only one major player in the US had the ability to do BEO and that was ULA. They did not have a full proposal until the early 2000s. It could have been done but again, see aforementioned problems with scrapping everything. You would have basically been doing CXP again only ULA is the contractor. Having a single launch provider would be a very bad idea for costs. Where is the incentive not to build the vehicle and then raise the price 400%?

Finally

Quote
Not to mention the operational changes as the SRBs are both toxic and potentially explosive(i.e some offices had to be moved out of the VAB).

I am not a fan of SRBs and I never have been. AJAX proposed liquid boosters from the get go. At the very least the *best* SDHLV scenario I could have seen would have been to keep using 4 segment boosters for your initial 70 mt vehicle while you got a liquid booster program spun up and hardware built, and then switching as soon as possible. But of course this would make ATK mad which Congress doesn't want.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/14/2018 07:13 pm
Quote
2) Redirect the old STS workforce and infrastructure towards deep space human space exploration architecture elements that don't duplicate and compete very poorly with commercial offerings.  (More politically possible with a strong Administrator and White House backing.)
There is nothing to re-direct except a vacant launchpad in the form of LC 39 B and the VAB. Everyone and almost everything from STS is long gone already CXP and friends saw to that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2018 07:19 pm
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama mafioso and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/14/2018 08:05 pm
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words). and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.

I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2018 08:14 pm
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 05/14/2018 08:15 pm
All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT.

At the time there were sightings of Michael Griffin with Senate staff, and the assumption was that he was the source of the technical specifications for the SLS. Which makes sense since he was the father of the Ares I/V rocket that was getting cancelled.

If that is true, would he be at all interested in the DIRECT design? Because I thought he didn't like DIRECT?

Quote
Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past.

I've mentioned this before, but it's because of DIRECT that I decided to get active in space forums, so I see myself as a legacy of DIRECT...  :)

Quote
SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown.

We all LOVE technology, but it's important to remember that the SLS is a transportation system, and transportation systems are judged by how effective they are - how much they transport, and how important the items were they transported, etc.

So regardless how well designed and built the SLS is, if it's not needed it will be designated a failure. That's life.

Quote
Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP.

Oh course NASA will survive. The SLS and Orion development programs are only about 20% of NASA's current budget, and if the SLS and Orion go away it's because Congress won't approve any HSF programs for them to transport. But there are plenty of other non-SLS programs that will continue.

The future of NASA is not in any way tied to the future of the SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 05/14/2018 08:23 pm
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.

A law made by Congress, and which Congress routinely ignores.

SLS doesn't have to show a profit, but it does have to show a public benefit, or the public will stop funding it. There's no public benefit to competing with commercial providers of the same services.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 05/14/2018 08:34 pm
I hope NASA will remain after SLS is canceled, because it would be a shame to lose the other programs. But the fate of SLS is sealed. It can't and shouldn't compete with commercial heavy lift. And commercial heavy lift isn't going away, so it's only a matter of time.

NASA is already prohibited by law from competing with commercial companies. If anything it is commercial that is allowed to compete with NASA for payloads. Cancellation of SLS is not a sure bet. It is a proven money maker for the Senators and Congressmen to feed federal funds back to their home districts. So assuming it survives, the US Gov is going to want to keep its own HSF program to fly US Gov payloads, crew and probes on US Gov vehicles. Remember, the government does not have to show any black ink. If it runs short it just taxes more, prints more, or both.

Congress will want to keep SLS and Orion programs running. One way to do that would be to use Orion on SLS Block 1B with a cargo module for launching crew while using commercial to launch everything else. Could place LOP-G or deep space vehicle modules in cislunar orbit, all designed and launched via commercial companies. Then a once per year SLS crew flight would keep Congress happy and actually accomplish something.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 05/14/2018 09:47 pm
SLS doesn't have to show a profit, but it does have to show a public benefit, or the public will stop funding it.

Don't confuse the interest for space displayed on this site for the interest for space displayed by the "public" you speak of.
The vast majority of the "public" could care less about what is or is not done with space. It is widely reported that a large number think the Shuttle is still flying. Others think nothing at all. Provide public benefit or don't provide public benefit. There is no difference between the 2 as far as the "public" is concerned. The "public" could care less either way. BTW, the "public" by and large has no idea what a "SLS" thingy is or who's building it or what it's for. They won't stop funding something they don't even know is being funded. The "public" just doesn't care. We do - but "they" don't. Yet discussions abound about what the Kardashians had for dinner last night or what Survivor got kicked out of what tribe. Now there is a subject of high national interest. -Sad

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Kansan52 on 05/14/2018 10:04 pm
Reminds of an encounter at a bar. I was talking to a friend that more is spent on beer each year than HSF at NASA. A drunk pipes up, "You want to take away my beer!?!".

Yep, that's the 'public'.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lars-J on 05/14/2018 11:29 pm
And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Then not much has changed, has it?

NASA accidentally created this massive federal jobs program (or purposefully depending on who you ask) during Apollo. Reaching the moon was the goal, but it could not be accomplished without Congressional support. Apollo did not have the universal support that we like to recall it having, it needed a lot of support - support which had to be 'bought' with jobs.

Overtime the primary mission of this beast changed. Creating jobs became the main mission, and going to space with the Shuttle was a nice bonus.

And with CxP and SLS+Orion, the transformation is complete. Development contracts without end, and that's a feature, not a bug. Not flying is the safest thing after all. But as we all see, this is not sustainable. This gravy train IS ending in the next decade, the only question is what shape it will be in afterwards.

(Note that I am not blaming the fine workers trapped in this system. They could accomplish so much, if they only were allowed to.)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Lobo on 05/14/2018 11:56 pm
I really wish that Jim would do a myths of direct or what ever thread like he did myths of CXP but I doubt he can at the moment due to working on SLS .

*snip*

And would require just about as much work as SLS does. Those studies like direct were at best first order. It is like saying if I put a more powerful engine in my car it would go faster. Well true, but can the engine fit under the hood and can the body support it? What about the power train, braking, center of gravity, suspension, wheel base, fuel economy(or millage per tank)and so forth. The shuttle was designed with a different purpose in mind reusable space plane not HLV. It was designed using technology and assembly methods from the 70ies and to expect it to be easy to mold into a rocket appropriate for the 21st centaury is wishful thinking.


Obviously Chuck or Ross would be the ones to really get into the meat of this.  But As I did follow it closely for awhile, a few things that were my understanding.

The J-130 was really the sweet spot LV.  It could have not only used all of the same construction as the ET, with the addition of a MPS on the bottom, actual left over ET's could have been converted at MAF to the J-130 core.  I think the heavier variants may have run into some of the same issues as SLS, needing to have thicker side walls for greater loads.  But SLS was longer as well as being designed to have more load on top, which lead them to go with a heavier Al-Li alloy, as the one they used for the ET couldn't be made in plates of sufficient thickness.  So the issues start to compound as you "try to put a bigger engine in your car", to use your analogy.  But J-130 didn't do that, it kept it stock.  That was the benefit of it.  It was the easiest material, work force, and political transition.  It checked a lot of boxes.

So, J-130 cores could have been built right there at MAF using all the same tooling and personnel.   And it would have been right in the same range of payload to LEO as the STS stack.  The 4-seg boosters would be exactly the same, and reused exactly the same.  It would have been a very good medium-heavy LV to get Orion CSM plus a payload module up to the ISS. 

Now, that wouldn't get us back to the Moon by itself, although with the DCSS/ICPS it could do pretty much what SLS will do prior to the EUS being flow.  It could have sent the Orion CSM around the Moon.  And been able to get under way probably a good 5-6 years before the last STS mission was flown, to be ready to fly right after without a gap, assuming the Orion CSM was ready.  (If it had been adopted out of the ESAS study, which a J-130 was evaluated, but rejected in favor of Ares 1/5.  "Direct" as such came along a few years later)

The rocket would need new avionics as the shuttle's avionics are mostly in the shuttle itself and were reused.

True, but this would be the case for -any- new HLV that wasn't the shuttle, SDHLV or a new clean sheet design.  So kind of a moot point.

Without  a mission no one can say what is or is not a useless piece of information. LEO is  perfectly good spot to stage a Mars mission, an NEO mission, or an moon mission that would make the Saturn V look about as powerful as an model rocket. But with no mission(at the time) driving the requirements of the rocket well any old number will do I guess.

Yes...and had NASA adopted the LEO construction method of BLEO missions, or even a 2-launch method, then J-130 itself would have worked well.  It could have lofted 75mt pieces/stages up to LEO at a time.  Or it could have launched Orion CSM + CPS on one launch, and a Lunar Lander + CPS on another launch, for a 2-launch system.  The CPS could have been basically ULA's ACES, using RL-10's, so no new J2X needed.
But they wanted the 1.5 launch, which meant the cargo launcher had to be really big...Ares V. Which got us the 5-seg booster, J2X, etc.

As Chuck mentioned, that ship as sailed.  But, the J-130 (Or what the ESAS Study called "LV 24 and LV 25"...they had it right there in front of them in 2005...) would have been a different animal that Ares V or SLS, as it kept right within the performance envelope of the STS stack.  It was just more streamlined, with no odd sidemounted loads or weird aerodynamics, and a traditional LOX tank instead of more difficult ovoid LOX tank.  The STS stack, with all of the weird and difficult bits of the STS stack removed.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 05/15/2018 04:56 am
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 05/15/2018 06:15 am
Between SLS, Exploration Ground Systems, and Orion, the Exploration Systems Development budget is a solid $3-$4 billion per year, not the $1-$2 billion that you posit.

I referenced the SLS budget, not the ESD budget.  But the point still stands if you use the larger total, because...

Quote
Shuttle functioned well enough on that kind of budget, and actually flew missions to boot.

Shuttle costs averaged $5.4B/yr. when operational.

Pielke and Byerly got $1.2B per STS flight (in 2010 dollars), not including development: 

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-shuttle-costs-1971-2011.html (http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/04/space-shuttle-costs-1971-2011.html)

Over 131 flights, that totals $157.2B. 

STS was operational from 1982-2011 or 29 years.

Dividing the former by the latter yields $5.4B/yr.

Or, for government work, $5B to $6B per year.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 05/15/2018 06:26 am
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.

The likely big projects over the next few years are the Mars Transfer Vehicle, various space stations, the Moon base, the Mars base and rovers. In situ resource utilization (IRSU) on the Moon, Mars and asteroids will exist but requires a different skill set from making rockets. The rocket side of lunar landers is already under way but its cabin is not. IMHO Those are the areas that the SLS NASA sites should enter.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/17/2018 05:04 pm
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.
Another 10 billion dollars and ten years lost forever.

And people wonder why Mars is always 30 years away for this circus act.

Anyway back to the previous:

All this talk of what might have been needs context (then we move on):

When the 2010 NASA Authorization Act was passed, what the members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee had in mind for the initial capability was quite literally DIRECT. Senate Bill S.3729, Section 302 stated: "The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit". This was pulled directly from the team's work and subsequent conversations with prominent committee members. ATK's influence was all over the advanced capability and it was the DIRECT 246 Heavy (modified) that is reflected in the advanced capability requirement. The Senate Bill said: "the capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more". The Heavy was never the aim of the team, but a concession to the knowledge that by that time the 5-segment SRB was a certain thing. The team believed it could likely use the SRB for the initial capability by simply leaving out the center segment, effectively making it a 4-segment SRB. At that time the SRB's were still to be recovered and reused.

Bolden was dragging NASA's feet and slow walking the process so completely (likely at the direction of Obama) that by the time SLS was announced the Alabama mafioso and friends had completely redesigned the LV and had effectively resurrected the Ares-V in its place. It even started with 5xRS-26s. At that time there was still enough of the STS infrastructure and personnel left to make it possible for it to actually be a SDHL but that quickly evaporated as the entire program began slipping to the right by a year every year and became a perpetual jobs program rather than a space program that was actually supposed to do anything.

And here we are today - a massive federal jobs program called SLS that spends billions of dollars every year without actually doing a damn thing except completely spend the money.

Conclusion: The days of DIRECT are long past. That program can never be resurrected so there's no need to rehash what might have been. SLS is what we have for a government program now. It's too big and it's too expensive but it's what we have. I don't want to see it fail like CxP did. The HLV is actually not a bad rocket, if only it could actually be built and flown. Yes there are other things that could be done with the money but it is what it is and after all this time and expense I want to see it fly. Because if it doesn't - well I don't know if NASA could survive another epic failure like CxP. So I hope we can all, even the non-supporters, support a successful program to get SLS/Orion into space. What NASA does with it after that - well that's up to the new vehicle's designers: Congress.

Chuck I am with you on all of this except the part of it flying. I too would like to see it fly, but I can't support taking the program to first flight, not as it's currently being run. Seems like right now we are getting new and major slips announced here every few months, or even every few weeks. And were talking 6-9 month slips each time, now it's looking like the first flight might not even happen in 2020.

It's totally unacceptable, we are likely to have an entirely new Congress by that point at least if the normal pendulum theory holds true in any way shape or form. On top of that alot of the old space flight hawks are nearing retirement or already retiring, I would think more of them will be gone by then so the safe guards for this program are gradually withering away.

On top of all of this is the fact that this thing fundamentally could have, and really should have flown in 2017 or this year. I can see missing the 2016 IOC but by more than two years? Ridiculous. At this rate a full scale BFR will have already landed a BFS on Mars by the time SLS makes a first flight.

And on top of that we have Falcon Heavy. The block 4 heavy in an expendable mode has crazy performance. I would imagine with M1d running at 192k-200k, SL the block 5 heavy flown in an expendable mode will have even better numbers, such that it may approach or exceed 70 mt. And even flown fully expendable the vehicle is still a tiny fraction of the money spent on SLS this year alone! And to do what? "Oh look guys we welded some seams! Oh look we made some tanks last month." This while BO/SPX and even ULA pump out stages at a regular pace.

Even as a jobs program this thing is failing. The term not so shovel ready comes to mind....
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 05/17/2018 05:09 pm
If all the rant about DIRECT proves anything, it's this: It's entirely possible to kill a major NASA program, fire tons of people, and junk all the previous infrastructure, as long as you have someone devious enough to arrange the whole thing with congress and there is something else to replace said program.

The likely big projects over the next few years are the Mars Transfer Vehicle, various space stations, the Moon base, the Mars base and rovers. In situ resource utilization (IRSU) on the Moon, Mars and asteroids will exist but requires a different skill set from making rockets. The rocket side of lunar landers is already under way but its cabin is not. IMHO Those are the areas that the SLS NASA sites should enter.

What they should do is put a big chunk of the SLS budget on these things, and things like DSG maybe make several DSGs to work in tandem as SEP tugs basically. That and Mars surface systems, almost nobody really knows what or how to do surface systems yet for Mars or where the cash is gonna come from for it. Even Spacex is only at the initial stages, we think, of working on their ISRU plant design, to say nothing of all the rest you would need.

Then take the rest of the budget and put it on a COTS BEO program for the LV, and this time don't force people to re-design a bunch of times by moving the goal posts (like commercial crew).

Sell the SLS components and the ML's for scrap metal maybe you could use the money you get for DSG.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 05/18/2018 06:26 am
Quote
NASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”

Here's the SLS users guide. Unfortunately, Block I performance is not listed. Block IB can put a minimum mass of 94.0 t into a 463 km orbit. Future upgrades increase this to 100.7 t. Block II is 108.3 t. Extrapolating to 200 km, I get 97.7 t, 104.7 t and 112.3 t. I don't see how Block I can get anywhere near 95 t with iCPS using a single RL-10 engine. We also see that Block II doesn't get anywhere near 130 t payload to LEO.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170005323
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: theinternetftw on 06/05/2018 06:00 pm
On performance, here's a relevant slide from the LOP-G All-Hands Presentation (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45240.msg1827881#msg1827881).  Block 1 is 26 tonnes to TLI.  Block 1B, 34-40 tonnes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jpo234 on 06/07/2018 04:10 pm
http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-emphasizes-partnerships-with-industry-to-achieve-nasa-goals/

Quote
The SLS, he argued, offered “a capability right now that no one else has, and so we want to deliver it.” However, he said he’d be open to revisiting that should commercial vehicles with similar capabilities enter service in the future. “If there comes a day when someone else can deliver that, then we need to think differently. It’s always evolving.”
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 06/07/2018 05:34 pm
http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-emphasizes-partnerships-with-industry-to-achieve-nasa-goals/

Quote
The SLS, he argued, offered “a capability right now that no one else has, and so we want to deliver it.” However, he said he’d be open to revisiting that should commercial vehicles with similar capabilities enter service in the future. “If there comes a day when someone else can deliver that, then we need to think differently. It’s always evolving.”

It's been disappointing to see this Administration and this new Administrator give into and not challenge the politics surrounding SLS/Orion.

The position that SLS offers a "capability right now" is bizarro-world from schedule and technical standpoints.  SLS is still years from first launch with no clear path to a stable, operational capability.  And even if SLS was launching, it's payload delivered over time, not per launch, that counts most for supporting exploration architectures once past 40-50t.   The SLS launch rate is so incompetent that it falls woefully short of a NASA Mars DRM and couldn't even maintain the Apollo lunar campaign.

And the position that SLS offers a "capability... no one else has" is blindingly shortsighted from a national policy/national good standpoint.  The US has three domestic launch providers (BO, SX, ULA) either offering or pursuing five different HLVs (NG, NA, FH, BFR/BFS, VHC).  This is a capability that NASA does not need to invest limited budget and human capital on internally.

To shape the future, you have to change the present.  NASA's human space flight enterprise should be shaping the future of US human space exploration capabilities.  Instead, under this Administration and Administrator, NASA will continue to compete very poorly in the ETO space until finally forced by private sector investments to abandon yet more years and billions of taxpayer dollars sunk into SLS.  This is a colossal waste and an enormous missed opportunity.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/07/2018 09:20 pm
JB would have never set foot in Administrator's office if he had outright said that SLS wasn't needed or viable.  What he is doing is to set stage for a comparison of vehicles on the launch pad, and selecting one (or more) that provides best performance for the exploration program.  At the same time, he is rolling out tasks for Lunar landers that will be purely commercial; this gets a process rolling. 

This is not dramatic change, but better IMO than former Administrator who said he didn't like the idea of commercial big rockets, and never failed to extol the SLS/Orion-based #JourneytoMars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/08/2018 04:25 pm
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.  Nothing currently out there matches its capability, so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?

I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night but its unreasonable to think NASA should cancel its POR before BFR is a proven entity.  IMO, we're likely at least a decade away from that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Jim on 06/08/2018 04:49 pm
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.  Nothing currently out there matches its capability, so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?


It is not flying in 2 years and NASA really doesn't have anything to fly on it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/08/2018 06:11 pm
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.

The development of the SLS sure seems likely to continue, but assuming the first SLS flight won't slip during the next two years is highly optimistic, and goes against the trends for major NASA programs.

Quote
Nothing currently out there matches its capability...

Remember the SLS was not designed to support any known payloads or programs back in 2010 when Congress told NASA to build it. And so far there are no fully-funded programs that require it's unique capabilities (Europa Clipper can use alternate launchers).

So as of today there are no specific requirements that the SLS satisfies. Of course it COULD be used for many payloads, because it is a general purpose transportation system, but as of today you can't say that no other rocket can match it's capabilities because there are no programs or payloads that NEED it's capabilities.

Quote
...so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?

The organization "NASA" did not ask for the SLS, and has no power to cancel it. Only Congress can cancel the SLS.

Quote
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night but its unreasonable to think NASA should cancel its POR before BFR is a proven entity.

The SLS is not yet a proven entity, so I'd be careful with using that logic to justify the SLS.

Regardless, as of today the U.S. Government has no need for any kind of HLV. And by "no need" I mean that there are no fully funded programs or payloads that require the long-term use of an HLV, and Congress has had 7 years to fund such a program since the start of the SLS program, so one has to wonder why they haven't?

Quote
IMO, we're likely at least a decade away from that.

Based on how quickly NASA can build and certify HSF hardware (18 years for Orion), it's unlikely that the SLS will be needed in the next 10 years anyways.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/08/2018 08:32 pm
It's been disappointing to see this Administration and this new Administrator give into and not challenge the politics surrounding SLS/Orion.
Not challenging the politics surrounding SLS/Orion was likely a condition of one or two confirmation votes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/09/2018 12:48 am
I do not see a challenge to SLS.  It is wanted by senators from both parties in states where it is made. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/11/2018 04:17 pm
I do not see a challenge to SLS.  It is wanted by senators from both parties in states where it is made. 

Of course. That's it's entire justification for existence; good-paying jobs back home buys re-election votes in November. THAT is what the support is about - in its entirety.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: butters on 06/12/2018 12:22 am
MSFC Director Todd May is retiring:

https://twitter.com/NASA_Marshall/status/1006232112939307009
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/12/2018 01:34 am
According to his NASA bio (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/todd-may-bio.html), Todd May earned his bachelor's degree in 1990, which likely makes him quite young by retiriee standards.  So I'd guess he's leaving NASA but not truly retiring.  Seems a little odd.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2018 01:03 pm
According to his NASA bio (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/todd-may-bio.html), Todd May earned his bachelor's degree in 1990, which likely makes him quite young by retiree standards.  So I'd guess he's leaving NASA but not truly retiring.  Seems a little odd.

Why? It's not like people don't retire from one job when they are able to (permanent income) and accept an offer from someone else. I personally know people that have done that, a few of them twice. Unless something more comes out it doesn't seem odd to me at all.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/13/2018 02:58 pm
I would tend to agree, except that if that's the path Todd May is following then I would have expected an announcement of where he is going.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/13/2018 10:20 pm
I would tend to agree, except that if that's the path Todd May is following then I would have expected an announcement of where he is going.

They would have said where only if he told them. Assuming that's his path he may have chosen, as many do, to just not say. "I'm retiring on such and such a date". The only thing he *has* to say is when his "retirement" starts.

I personally know people who retired because they wanted to do something else but hadn't picked a new path yet. So they retired, just because they could, and just relaxed for a while. He's a young man with lots of time ahead of him. Retirement doesn't always mean "I quit working". It can mean anything he wants it to mean and he doesn't owe anyone any explanation at all.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/14/2018 01:00 pm
Since SpaceX is going to do refueling in LEO for BFR.  IF, another big IF, they develop refueling the second stage in orbit, would say a 40 ton payload launched on FH, then refuel the second stage.  Can this match TMI with SLS block II?  If so, then FH alone with refueling would probably be cheaper than SLS.  At that point would that kill SLS?  Or if New Glen gets going and could do refueling of their hydrolox second stage?  How about Vulcan w/ACES and refueling?  Seems to me refueling in LEO is going to be the way to go.  More vendors, more counties involved to, by using smaller launch vehicles to deliver fuel.  More launches = lower costs for all.  Why isn't NASA working on this instead?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: rst on 06/14/2018 01:50 pm
Since SpaceX is going to do refueling in LEO for BFR.  IF, another big IF, they develop refueling the second stage in orbit, would say a 40 ton payload launched on FH, then refuel the second stage.  Can this match TMI with SLS block II?  If so, then FH alone with refueling would probably be cheaper than SLS.  At that point would that kill SLS?  Or if New Glen gets going and could do refueling of their hydrolox second stage?  How about Vulcan w/ACES and refueling?  Seems to me refueling in LEO is going to be the way to go.  More vendors, more counties involved to, by using smaller launch vehicles to deliver fuel.  More launches = lower costs for all.  Why isn't NASA working on this instead?

Second-stage refueling for SLS-class payloads is ULA's plan for Vulcan/ACES, though timelines on that are even iffier than they are for SLS.  Very unlikely that SpaceX would do anything similar with Falcon 9, though.  F9 S2 modifications to support in-orbit refuelling and long-endurance operations would not be small, and the engineers you'd need to do them have their hands full trying to get BFR off the ground.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: clongton on 06/14/2018 03:16 pm
At that point would that kill SLS?

SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/14/2018 11:15 pm
At that point would that kill SLS?

SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.

I hope someone within the agency is already working on a plan to transition the workforce into this particular vacuum when it happens.

As we both know all too well (!) there is a whole range of additional projects that could be used to keep all the same funds flowing to the right places and all the same people working hard.   All it will take (!) is to get the political figures to accept the new direction.   I'd love to work on such a thing, but the politics just gets my blood boiling a little too much, and I think it would be wise to pass on the middle aged heart attack :)

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/15/2018 05:04 am

I hope someone within the agency is already working on a plan to transition the workforce into this particular vacuum when it happens.

As we both know all too well (!) there is a whole range of additional projects that could be used to keep all the same funds flowing to the right places and all the same people working hard.   All it will take (!) is to get the political figures to accept the new direction.   I'd love to work on such a thing, but the politics just gets my blood boiling a little too much, and I think it would be wise to pass on the middle aged heart attack :)

Ross.

Politicians understand getting caught. The world's most powerful rocket is great but being attacked to the world's most expensive rocket could be troublesome. The get out is that the SLS will launch in 2-3 years time. NASA has the DoD's nasty habit of laying off people at the end of a project. The lay-offs will be in his constituency, which is likely to have bad results at the following election. He can be proactive - ask NASA for a list of possible new projects his constituents could work on. When a group of project that will 'Make America Great Again' have been chosen ensure that are approved and given budgets.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 06/15/2018 09:18 am
Why isn't NASA working on this instead?
Without addressing the alternative, because it is irrelevant - NASA did not specify this launch system.

That is the entire answer.
SLS was mandated in more-or-less its current form by congress, and cannot be cancelled by NASA, even in the face of cheaper alternatives.
In a rational world, there might be a way for companies to bid against in process contracts if they could show the capability, but there is not. (not that this would not raise other issues)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/15/2018 07:15 pm
Politicians understand getting caught.

True. They also have the hard evidence that followed CxP's collapse, when no politician suffered any fallout what-so-ever.

That tells me that it wouldn't be all that much of a problem to change things around, just as long as the replacement plan carefully manages to address the same points that the politicians have today.

It really isn't about removing funds or jobs. IMHO, the best solution would really be about redirecting all that same effort towards a better target.

But I agree, it probably won't happen until it flies at least once.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: mike robel on 06/15/2018 10:47 pm
Ross,

A replacement plan crafted in the way you say is no plan at all.  Without a valid target, there won't be political leadership or political support, and therefore insufficient funds and agreeing on anything will be as elusive as it has been since Spiro Agnew said, "On to Mars!"

All a plan like that will do is preserve jobs in some places without any achievement.  I wonder how many bridges and water mains we could replace with the money from manned space flight?

Mike
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/16/2018 03:37 pm
I fully agree Mike, without an explicit target for the work, its just make-work.

I personally still hope that NASA management will be willing to push the idea that the original VSE had at it's core (note, this is separate policy, not to be confused with CxP, which was the flawed execution of that policy at that time) and build a comprehensive capability that takes us everywhere.

Moon, Mars and Beyond is what we should all be looking at, and from there we build all of the parts needed - and there are a lot of them - not just a big shiny rocket that can barely even manage step 1 on that long path.

From where I sit, it looks to me as though something around 75% of the hardware needed to explore and colonise the Moon, could be identical to that needed for Mars too.   And a similarly high percentage of the gear needed for use on planetary bodies is the same as we need for large-scale in-space activity too.   A plan that aims to develop all those core systems is past due IMHO.

Another, related, thought:   For all the money invested in ISS so far, have we actually managed to develop all the key systems we are going to need for colonisation of our solar system?   I don't think so.   Yet that was supposed to be its underlying purpose.   I think we need to get to it.

This is where these massive government programs look so stupid IMHO.   You compare the long-term progress, the money expended and the results it has produced.   Then look at the progress made in the commercial sector, faster and for a lot less investment, and NASA no longer looks like a good investment.

That's what really needs to change, IMHO.   With the same money, the same sized workforce, but operating more efficiently and in a more focused manner - akin to the commercial operators - just imagine what the agency could accomplish!

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/17/2018 12:15 pm
You are suggesting 'more bang for the buck'?
How dare you!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/17/2018 11:27 pm
Quote
NASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”

Here's the SLS users guide. Unfortunately, Block I performance is not listed. Block IB can put a minimum mass of 94.0 t into a 463 km orbit. Future upgrades increase this to 100.7 t. Block II is 108.3 t. Extrapolating to 200 km, I get 97.7 t, 104.7 t and 112.3 t. I don't see how Block I can get anywhere near 95 t with iCPS using a single RL-10 engine. We also see that Block II doesn't get anywhere near 130 t payload to LEO.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170005323

Pretty ironic. After all the justifications given for this system to be scaled up and made as big as it is, NASA still utterly fails to conform to the letter of the law even when it comes to meeting the 130 ton vehicle requirements

Even after giving Alabama everything they wanted and more the vehicle still can't do a single thing it was required to do by law.

It's really unbelievable at this point. I wonder how much more ridiculous this is going to get before we reach stick levels of absurdity.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/18/2018 12:00 am
A fifth RS-25 on the corestage and a stronger upper stage would just about get them to 130 metric tons to L.E.O. So why aren't they doing it?! That's the $64 billion dollar question. Almost literally...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/18/2018 01:36 am
Quote
NASA replied: “Now that the SLS design has matured and the program has more data as a result of progress with hardware manufacturing and testing, our current analysis shows the Block 1 configuration of SLS can deliver an estimated mass of 95 metric tons (209,439 pounds) to low-Earth orbit based on a 200 by 200-kilometer orbit with a 28.5 degree inclination, which is a commonly used orbit in the industry for estimating performance.”

Here's the SLS users guide. Unfortunately, Block I performance is not listed. Block IB can put a minimum mass of 94.0 t into a 463 km orbit. Future upgrades increase this to 100.7 t. Block II is 108.3 t. Extrapolating to 200 km, I get 97.7 t, 104.7 t and 112.3 t. I don't see how Block I can get anywhere near 95 t with iCPS using a single RL-10 engine. We also see that Block II doesn't get anywhere near 130 t payload to LEO.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170005323

Are you estimating PSM, or PSM less PMR, which is what is reported in NASA's figures?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 06/18/2018 06:25 am
A fifth RS-25 on the corestage and a stronger upper stage would just about get them to 130 metric tons to L.E.O. So why aren't they doing it?! That's the $64 billion dollar question. Almost literally...

Oh come on, really? You really have to ask that question?

The answer is in plain sight: US Congress is not going to enforce the 130 metric tons requirement. Much like they didn't enforce the December 2016 deadline for first flight.

All US Congress really cares about is the money being spent in their districts. As long as that happens, regardless of SLS flying (or not) or SLS meeting its performance requirements (or not), they will be satisfied.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 06/18/2018 06:56 am
I think I was being rhetorical, Woods170! After all; I've been following the labyrinthine, meandering path of all this since the 'Vision For Space Exploration' post-Columbia, thru the announcement of SLS and beyond... :'(
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/18/2018 01:56 pm
A fifth RS-25 on the corestage and a stronger upper stage would just about get them to 130 metric tons to L.E.O. So why aren't they doing it?! That's the $64 billion dollar question. Almost literally...

After they build Block 2, they'll obviously need a Block 3, then Block 4, then...

Maybe they can fly only one of each, with a new ML each time so that we can keep the numbers straight.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/18/2018 02:49 pm
They only way I see them getting greater than 130 tons to LEO is to add the 5th RS-25 on the core and use liquid kerolox boosters on the sides.  Then they would have to build a large upper stage with a J2X on it or six RL-10's.  Then maybe 150 tons.  This of course would mean another 10 years and 30 billion dollars. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RDoc on 06/20/2018 03:11 am
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.

If Blue Origin and/or SpaceX start launching vehicles that are obviously cheaper and comparable or superior in performance before SLS, Congress is going to be in an very awkward position. A very likely escape for them at that point will be to blame NASA management and engineering for failing to follow the law. Lots of congressional hearings, high dudgeon, forced resignations, etc.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: UltraViolet9 on 06/20/2018 02:26 pm
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.

Quote
A recent assessment of the completion date for the first Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage now puts it at the end of May, 2019, close to the middle of next year. The date indicates that production and assembly schedules are still sliding and is reducing confidence in meeting the June, 2020 date that was at the late end of NASA’s schedule forecast for the Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1) launch.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/schedule-first-sls-core-stage-sliding/

Quote
Nothing currently out there matches its capability

Due to its incompetent flight rate, most everything exceeds the capability of SLS to deliver payload tonnage over time.

Quote
so why do you think NASA would suddenly cancel it now?

There are multiple, pressing reasons for a new-ish Administration and a new NASA Administrator to not wait terminate now:

Poor Flight Safety Projections -- The LOC projections for SLS/Orion are worse than for STS.  These systems will kill astronauts at a higher rate than the prior system, which two prior Administrations terminated because it killed astronauts at an unacceptably high rate.

Unable to Advance Exploration -- SLS can't put up enough payload in a year, or even over multiple years, to support NASA's Mars DRMs.  SLS can't even maintain the cadence of lunar missions from Apollo.

Schedules Slipping Into Political Irrelevance -- If the Administration does not win a second term, astronauts will not launch on SLS before the POTUS leaves office.  It looks increasingly likely that SLS will not launch at all before the POTUS leaves office.

Bad Industrial Policy -- Three US companies (BO, SX, ULA) currently field or are pursuing five different HLVs (BFR/BFS, FH, NA, NG, VH).  Properly managed, there could be great redundancy and a healthy domestic heavy lift market for the USG to rely on.  Improperly managed, there will be a glut of capability and contraction and shrinkage in US heavy lift capabilities.  The Administration should be consolidating USG heavy lift needs on these vehicles, not separating out and stovepiping USG needs.

Bad Workforce Policy -- SLS is wasting tens of thousands of highly skilled US aerospace workers' careers on a vehicle that duplicates and compares badly with private sector-led alternatives.  This is a very poor use of a limited and valuable national asset.

Opportunity Cost -- On top of the workforce, SLS, Orion, and their grounds systems consume a few billions of taxpayer dollars a year.  Even allowing these programs to proceed through first launch will waste around another $10 billion that could be spent on actual human space exploration systems, not another, duplicative ETO segment that may only launch a couple times, if ever.

Bad Management -- From tilted welding tool foundations to leaning launch towers, the program has been beset by bad execution and oversight at the subcontractor, contractor, and government levels -- often for elements that don't even involve the actual flight systems.  This bodes very poorly going forward.

Quote
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night

It's not about BFR.  Musk could get run over and SpaceX could vanish tomorrow, and it would still be a very poor and wasteful decision to continue with SLS.

A new Administration and a new NASA Administrator provide an opportunity to consciously and seriously reconsider the path forward.  It is unfortunate that they are not taking advantage of this opportunity.

Quote
but its unreasonable to think NASA should cancel its POR

NASA does not have a POR for human space exploration.  It has an ETO segment some years from operation, a nascent small robotic lunar lander program, and amorphous plans for a second space station that was very poorly rebranded for the new Administration.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/20/2018 03:32 pm
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.

If Blue Origin and/or SpaceX start launching vehicles that are obviously cheaper and comparable or superior in performance before SLS, Congress is going to be in an very awkward position. A very likely escape for them at that point will be to blame NASA management and engineering for failing to follow the law. Lots of congressional hearings, high dudgeon, forced resignations, etc.

EM-2 marks the change of SLS and Orion from development to production. It is government tradition to lay-off the development teams at this point. From then on Congress will have to approve the purchases of SLS against cheaper private sector launch vehicles - this soon gets embarrassing.

To reduce the lay-offs NASA needs to transfer the design teams to developing equipment for the lunar surface and Mars trips. NASA is meant to be many things but it is not meant to be a manufacturing company.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: kraisee on 06/20/2018 04:19 pm
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night

Missed your original post of this, but it was quoted later and I feel the need to respond.

While I also expect that a successful BFR system will show a really clean pair of heels to all of its competitors, that's not the end of the story.

There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

Ross.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/20/2018 04:37 pm
This is where these massive government programs look so stupid IMHO.   You compare the long-term progress, the money expended and the results it has produced.   Then look at the progress made in the commercial sector, faster and for a lot less investment, and NASA no longer looks like a good investment.

The problem with R+D is that you need to fail to get anywhere.  The poster child of commercial spaceflight is SpaceX.  SpaceX was funded through a government program that also funded one company that went bankrupt (Kristler) and one company that delivered but was already pretty mature before the program.  If NASA hadn't been willing to fail, they never would have given that money to Kristler and SpaceX.  It's not a problem that NASA fails where the private sector is more reliable, it's a vital necessity.  The problem is that it's really difficult to set out to fail over and over again when everyone else is setting out to succeed.

I dont think that there is an alternative to the government when it comes to blue sky research.  Extremely generous patent laws try to incentivize risk taking in the pharmaceutical sector but the most popular avenues of investment are the most conservative, developing isomers of existing drugs and buying startups that developed an experimental treatment while working on grant money.  I much prefer the arrangement where NASA tries a bunch of stuff and wastes a lot of money then private industry scavenges the wreckage to find the profitable bits.  At least that way the profitable seeking after the failure happens in a competitive market.

Unable to Advance Exploration -- SLS can't put up enough payload in a year, or even over multiple years, to support NASA's Mars DRMs.  SLS can't even maintain the cadence of lunar missions from Apollo.

While I share your disappointment with the cadence, that's a rather high standard to judge by.  Apollo had a sky high budget and operated very, very briefly.  To match that would be roughly equal to about 200 flights of the Falcon 9 in 5 years.  And as the ISS taught us, launching in small chunks is a lot less efficient then launching in big chunks.

Bad Industrial Policy -- Three US companies (BO, SX, ULA) currently field or are pursuing five different HLVs (BFR/BFS, FH, NA, NG, VH).  Properly managed, there could be great redundancy and a healthy domestic heavy lift market for the USG to rely on.  Improperly managed, there will be a glut of capability and contraction and shrinkage in US heavy lift capabilities.  The Administration should be consolidating USG heavy lift needs on these vehicles, not separating out and stovepiping USG needs.

I think there will be a glut but you overstate things a bit.  NA isn't actually in development yet.  Falcon Heavy and Vulcan heavy are both "heavy" versions meaning that all their hardware is useful in existing medium launch markets.  BFR is huge but it's supposed to be carrying fuel for distributed launches, a market that currently doesn't exist because the hardware isn't there.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

Ross.

That assured access could be provided more cheaply by Vulcan.  In order for New Glenn to be assured, you need to have enough cargo to justify flying a seven engine rocket.  In order for Vulcan to fly, you need to have enough cargo to justify flying a two engine rocket.  You dont need to be flying the Vulcan Heavy, you just need to be flying any Vulcan at all, the same way they do with Delta Heavy.  Additionally, Falcon 9 and Vulcan are both likely to get rated for manned launches while there hasn't been a whisper of that for New Glenn.  So if the commercial crew program finally starts launching you already have two heavy launchers (FalconH/BFR and Delta/Vulcan) and two crewed launchers (Falcon9/BFR and Atlas/Vulcan) just from the existing commercial market and the commercial crew program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/20/2018 04:46 pm
It is not the number of engines that make for the cost of a rocket, but the total cost.  F9 uses 9 low cost engines.  They have engine out capability.  New Glenn may have 5 or 7 engines, but they will LAND the whole booster for reuse.  Vulcan only captures the two engines and has to have new tankage and plumbing.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/20/2018 05:10 pm
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system.

Just like some in DC pushed Orion as back-up access to ISS (http://spacenews.com/42165smith-to-bolden-why-not-orion-for-commercial-crew/), well beyond the time when it was clearly laughable (http://spacenews.com/nasa-authorization-bill-calls-for-orion-iss-study/).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/20/2018 06:10 pm
I agree, soon as BFR becomes operational, everything currently flying or in-work become obsolete over night

Missed your original post of this, but it was quoted later and I feel the need to respond.

While I also expect that a successful BFR system will show a really clean pair of heels to all of its competitors, that's not the end of the story.

There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

Ross.

The backup should be an equivalent system, or it really isn't a backup at all. SLS is not an equivalent to BFR/BFS, the launch rate and performance are too low by at least an order of magnitude, not mention the cost.

Vulcan-ACES and New Glenn would be better backup systems, as both should be capable of high launch rates and reasonable prices, and could at least get somewhere near the performance with distributed launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/20/2018 10:03 pm
but they will LAND the whole booster for reuse.

Eventually.  SpaceX went through like 20 boosters before the first reflight booster.  If it took the same amount of cores to get there that would be 140 BE-4 engines before reflight matters.  140 BE-4 engines would be enough engines for 70 vulcan flights.  If the goal is "assured access" that would be fine with about 6 flights a year.  I'm not saying 6 is the right number, or even the number I expect, but 6 is how many flights you would want a year if the goal is to have a flight proven system ready.  So 140 engines would get you to summer of 2033, by which time I'm guessing Vulcan and New Glenn would both be eyeing retirement.  In terms of serving the market there are advantages in being big and streamlined.  But if you are talking about what is cheap to subsidize, the small system is going to be hard to beat.

Although, to go in a completely different direction, I think the market could support two or even three heavy lifters so assured access wont actually end up being a selling point.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/20/2018 10:19 pm
but they will LAND the whole booster for reuse.

Eventually.  SpaceX went through like 20 boosters before the first reflight booster.  If it took the same amount of cores to get there that would be 140 BE-4 engines before reflight matters.  140 BE-4 engines would be enough engines for 70 vulcan flights.  If the goal is "assured access" that would be fine with about 6 flights a year.  I'm not saying 6 is the right number, or even the number I expect, but 6 is how many flights you would want a year if the goal is to have a flight proven system ready.  So 140 engines would get you to summer of 2033, by which time I'm guessing Vulcan and New Glenn would both be eyeing retirement.  In terms of serving the market there are advantages in being big and streamlined.  But if you are talking about what is cheap to subsidize, the small system is going to be hard to beat.

Although, to go in a completely different direction, I think the market could support two or even three heavy lifters so assured access wont actually end up being a selling point.

In relation to being a backup USG heavy lifter (to SLS or otherwise), Blue's cost to develop reuse wouldn't end up being relevant, since Blue is shouldering that cost themselves and betting that they will be competitive enough in the commercial market to survive without subsidy.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/21/2018 12:02 am
In relation to being a backup USG heavy lifter (to SLS or otherwise), Blue's cost to develop reuse wouldn't end up being relevant, since Blue is shouldering that cost themselves and betting that they will be competitive enough in the commercial market to survive without subsidy.

If they are doing that anyway, the assured access is already a moot point.  The assured access would only matter if there aren't going to be two launchers without any funds being disbursed for the purposes of creating assured access.

A scenario where there are fewer then two heavy launchers requires one of these things IMHO:
-Disastrous setback for Raptor and/or BE-4
-The GTO market dries up so there isn't enough market to sustain two launchers
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/21/2018 12:27 am
In relation to being a backup USG heavy lifter (to SLS or otherwise), Blue's cost to develop reuse wouldn't end up being relevant, since Blue is shouldering that cost themselves and betting that they will be competitive enough in the commercial market to survive without subsidy.

If they are doing that anyway, the assured access is already a moot point.  The assured access would only matter if there aren't going to be two launchers without any funds being disbursed for the purposes of creating assured access.

A scenario where there are fewer then two heavy launchers requires one of these things IMHO:
-Disastrous setback for Raptor and/or BE-4
-The GTO market dries up so there isn't enough market to sustain two launchers

Even in either of those cases I think they probably would still have FH and Vulcan ACES 564 (which with distributed launch can send 35 tonnes anywhere SLS can). FH will stick around due to F9 business, and Vulcan will be mostly supported by NSS launches, NASA ISS crew, NASA science missions, plus the occasional GTO dual berth.

So the downside of a potential SLS-less future is reasonable, while the upside is very high indeed, in terms of HLV and SHLV capabilities.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/21/2018 02:03 am
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space, NASA never had any redundancy in their own launch system.

Also BFR is not just a super heavy, it's also in-space habitat + lander, there's no point to provide a super heavy backup without the corresponding habitat and lander.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/21/2018 02:08 am
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space, NASA never had any redundancy in their own launch system.

Also BFR is not just a super heavy, it's also in-space habitat + lander, there's no point to provide a super heavy backup without the corresponding habitat and lander.

The backup for the Space Shuttle is the Russian Soyuz. NASA has been using it for several years now. Soyuz carries fewer passengers and considerably less cargo.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/21/2018 02:36 am
Even in either of those cases I think they probably would still have FH and Vulcan ACES 564 (which with distributed launch can send 35 tonnes anywhere SLS can). FH will stick around due to F9 business, and Vulcan will be mostly supported by NSS launches, NASA ISS crew, NASA science missions, plus the occasional GTO dual berth.

So the downside of a potential SLS-less future is reasonable, while the upside is very high indeed, in terms of HLV and SHLV capabilities.

When you say there would still be the Vulcan, are you talking about an AR-1 Vulcan?

In the sudden GTO market dry up scenario, I was thinking there wasn't enough demand to justify the Vulcan without an "assured access" rationale but I'm rethinking that now.  The CST-100 and Dream Chaser will probably account for at least a couple flights a year each.  Even absent launch diversity concerns, the Air Force is going to have enough flights to SSO or LEO that that Vulcan is certainly going to pick up one or two.  So that's five or six already and Vulcan only needs about six a year to keep the shop open.  So there isn't any need to worry about "access assurance" without a hardware failure.

I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.

What is the proposal you are referencing?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/21/2018 02:42 am
There is an underlying principle in US government space circles that there should - wherever possible - be a second supplier to provide redundant access to space. That way, should either system suffer a critical failure and need to be taken out of service for a long period of time (also should the company itself fail and disappear for any reason), there is a usable backup system left in place to always provide strategic access to space.

In the past this was Atlas and Delta for medium lift. When BFR comes along and returns super-heavy lift capabilities once again, that policy will still likely remain. It won't surprise me one bit if those in DC choose SLS as the second system. I believe that it will then be up to Blue Origin to try to deliver a third system which is also much, much cheaper than SLS, before SLS will really come under severe scrutiny as being truly surplus to need.

I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space, NASA never had any redundancy in their own launch system.

Also BFR is not just a super heavy, it's also in-space habitat + lander, there's no point to provide a super heavy backup without the corresponding habitat and lander.

The backup for the Space Shuttle is the Russian Soyuz. NASA has been using it for several years now. Soyuz carries fewer passengers and considerably less cargo.

If I understand it correctly, Soyuz is never the backup to Shuttle or vice versa. Shuttle couldn't provide emergency crew return capability, so you'll always need a Soyuz even if Shuttle is flying. Of course Soyuz couldn't do ISS construction like the Shuttle, which is why ISS construction came to a halt after Columbia, but that's ok, it didn't spell the end of ISS, just some delays.

To provide equivalent of Soyuz, you'll need something like X-38 or OSP, but both are cancelled, which just goes to show how serious NASA takes this redundancy business.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: EnigmaSCADA on 06/21/2018 03:16 am
SLS long ago stopped being about space. It's about jobs back in the home states. So no that will not kill SLS.
Congress will continue to fund this jobs program until it no longer makes sense on the homefront to fund this instead of something else. At that point the funding will transition to the something else.
Musing: This could end up in a pretty nasty manner.

If Blue Origin and/or SpaceX start launching vehicles that are obviously cheaper and comparable or superior in performance before SLS, Congress is going to be in an very awkward position. A very likely escape for them at that point will be to blame NASA management and engineering for failing to follow the law. Lots of congressional hearings, high dudgeon, forced resignations, etc.
I can guarantee there will be politicians grandstanding & acting astounded at, what is in reality, their failure, their specifications, their pork, and ultimately their rocket. Most sickening will be watching the ones that count Houston, MSFC, Stennis, and Michoud as their constituents (this is all debatable & I'm sure someone will take offense, just my opinion, but let's be honest, there's no naturally  occuring reason  why a bunch of rocket engineering sprouted up in Alabama). It'll be breathtaking, revolting, and yet predictable, their hypocrisy and complete disrespect/disdain to the working American taxpayer. And they will get away with it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/21/2018 03:17 am
[The backup for the Space Shuttle is the Russian Soyuz.

The Shuttle could never do what the Soyuz does - keep crew at the ISS for months.

If the Shuttle program had been shut down after the Columbia accident we could have found a way to finish the ISS using existing launchers with self-propulsion units (think Cygnus Service Modules).

If the Soyuz transportation system would have needed to be shut down for some reason while the ISS was under construction, the ISS program would have come to an end because there wouldn't have been a spacecraft that could have kept crew at the ISS continuously.

So when comparing transportation systems you can't compare just capabilities, you have to compare what they are needed to support. Which is why referencing a transportation systems maximum capabilities is misleading, since the maximum capabilities are rarely required.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/21/2018 04:17 am
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.

What is the proposal you are referencing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/21/2018 04:56 am
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.

What is the proposal you are referencing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy

Atlas V Heavy was probably two years away from becoming operational, but work would not have started without the U.S. Government approving funding for it. But Delta IV Heavy would be unlikely to stay out of commission for longer than it would take to make Atlas V Heavy operational, so it was never required.

The SLS, if used to it's maximum capabilities, would likely be a single-point-of-failure transportation system. But so far there are no near-term plans that really require it's full capabilities, or at least in a way that can't be replaced with an alternative.

And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: woods170 on 06/21/2018 08:10 am
And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!

[snark]
I will note however that "full-speed ahead" for SLS translates into "snail's pace".
[/snark]
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/21/2018 10:55 am
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.

What is the proposal you are referencing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy

Atlas V Heavy was probably two years away from becoming operational, but work would not have started without the U.S. Government approving funding for it. But Delta IV Heavy would be unlikely to stay out of commission for longer than it would take to make Atlas V Heavy operational, so it was never required.

The SLS, if used to it's maximum capabilities, would likely be a single-point-of-failure transportation system. But so far there are no near-term plans that really require it's full capabilities, or at least in a way that can't be replaced with an alternative.

And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!

The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

Zero or one big rocket has always been sufficient... but this isn't about rockets and/or exploration.  It is about padding the pockets of giant defense contractors and keeping the Federal work-force secure.  Must keep the cash flowing, logic be damned.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/21/2018 11:58 am
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion.

What is the proposal you are referencing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_V#Atlas_V_Heavy

Atlas V Heavy was probably two years away from becoming operational, but work would not have started without the U.S. Government approving funding for it. But Delta IV Heavy would be unlikely to stay out of commission for longer than it would take to make Atlas V Heavy operational, so it was never required.

The SLS, if used to it's maximum capabilities, would likely be a single-point-of-failure transportation system. But so far there are no near-term plans that really require it's full capabilities, or at least in a way that can't be replaced with an alternative.

And regardless, Congress has not been worried about a lack of redundancy for the SLS, so full-speed ahead!

The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

Zero or one big rocket has always been sufficient... but this isn't about rockets and/or exploration.  It is about padding the pockets of giant defense contractors and keeping the Federal work-force secure.  Must keep the cash flowing, logic be damned.

NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/21/2018 12:51 pm
Falcon 9 and Atlas V are medium rockets, not super heavies, as well as Delta V.   We never had back up for super heavies.

Also, New Glenn with 7 engines is completely reusable and can deliver 40 tons to LEO.  Vulcan with 2 engines will not be able to deliver 40 tons without strap-on solids and then can't reach 40 tons, only about 30 maybe 35.  With the solids, not being fully reusable, and not able to deliver 40 tons to LEO, Vulcan still will not match New Glenn ton for ton.  It, with solids, would cost as much or more than New Glenn.  A used New Glenn would probably be cheaper, just like a used F9 is cheaper than a new one.  So the number of engines, I still believe will not matter with reusable rockets. 

Being able to refuel upper stages and spacecraft will deliver more payloads to deep space making SLS obsolete.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/21/2018 01:51 pm

The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/21/2018 02:12 pm
Also, New Glenn with 7 engines is completely reusable and can deliver 40 tons to LEO.

Unless New Glenn has redesigned the second stage for reusability then started launching, landing and relaunching rockets without refurbishment while I wasn't paying attention, this doesn't matter for assured access, which was the topic of discussion.

It, with solids, would cost as much or more than New Glenn

Somebody said that the SLS mattered for assured access.  In terms of assured access, the Air Force and NASA have never made a distinction between a vehicle with and without solid boosters.  Thus the SLS is unlikely to matter for assured access.  The US already has two heavy launchers capable of 10 tons to GTO and the US will have at least two such launchers in the future.  There isn't going to be a national security argument for keeping ANY system around, barring a major system failure that completely upsets everything.

If you want to go start a thread "New Glenn vs Vulcan, who is better?" or "New Glenn, how many years until the achieve full reusability", I would be happy to discuss that stuff with you there.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/21/2018 02:28 pm
I don't see it, notice there's no backup for Delta IV Heavy, one was planned but not funded to completion. And that's for national security where redundancy is much more important than civil space....

I'd go further than that.  Even before Falcon 9 was cleared for national-security launches, Delta IV Medium and Atlas V were becoming less and less dissimilar.  They started out sharing an upper-stage engine, the RL-10.  Then their production lines were combined in a single facility and one of them (I forget which) adopted a significant portion of the other's avionics.  These moves saved money but suggest that before SpaceX arrived on the scene, not much weight was attached to redundant launch capabilities.  Now, however, it seems to be regarded as quite important.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/22/2018 05:55 am

The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.


The plan pre Challenger was to shut down the expendables in favor of the Shuttle. The Shuttle was to perform all launches military, commercial(com sats.), Nasa(probes) and manned. After Challenger the Shuttle was banned from carrying any payload(Not just military) that could launch on another launcher. Also the Shuttle was the heaviest launcher at time and so post Challenger the Titan IV project got the go ahead to handle the largest payloads that only the Shuttle could carry. The problem with SLS acting as back up to any commercial launcher is that NASA does not operate that way and that the payloads that use SLS need to be designed to work with another launcher from the get go. If the payload in question is Orion, then it either needs to be able to be launched by another launcher or it's functions replaced by something like BFR or an upgraded Dragon/CST-100 and such a program would have to start now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 06/22/2018 05:13 pm
Wandering. And wandered ridiculously in three posts I've trimmed out. Thread title is here to help you.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/22/2018 07:39 pm
...

NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.


The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.

Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/23/2018 04:01 am

The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.

1. Unlike Saturn/Shuttle/SLS, Commercial Cargo and Crew vehicles do not belong to USG, they are owned by the companies. One can argue without public/private partnership the redundancy in Commercial Cargo and Crew wouldn't exist since a USG owned system would be way too expensive to allow a backup, just like Saturn/Shuttle/SLS.

2. 50% of the investment in Commercial Cargo and 90%+ of the investment in Commercial Crew went to the spacecraft, launcher is only part of the equation. Without a equivalent to BFS, there is no backup to BFR.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/23/2018 07:48 pm
...

NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.


The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.

Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?

The backup to an SLS launching Orion and a LOP-G module to lunar orbit could be 2 launches. The first sends the LOP-G module to lunar orbit and the second launch sends a Dragon V2 or enhanced Starliner or Orion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/25/2018 10:42 pm
...

NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.


The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.

Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?

The current round of launch vehicle development contracts is being done by the air force.

As far as who could build a second SHLV...Very few can...ULA, Northrop Grumman, SpaceX, Boeing. Blue Origin hasn't reached orbit, Rocket Lab/Virgin Orbit is small. 3 of them already are building SLS. Which would leave either  NG/ULA/Boeing building two different SHLVs or a competititon between SpaceX and SpaceX. Maybe we could revisit this when Blue Origin reaches orbit or ULA is freed by the move to Block 1B from involvement with SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/25/2018 11:07 pm
You know what would be really funny right about now or say Q1 2019?

Not saying they will do this, I think there are many reasons why they never would, but what if SpaceX started offering a raptor upper stage option for FH launches customer specific only? I have a feeling even if you shifted all the cost to each individual customer who might want the extra performance it would still come in pretty low.

And an FH with a raptor upper stage, particularly on block five, would come very close to or exceed performance of SLS block 1.


This almost certainly won't happen but here is why I bring this up. SLS is absolutely absurd at this point. If they really wanted to, any of the four major spaceflight companies (ULA BO SPACEX Northrup-ATK) could almost certainly produce a vehicle in a very very short amount of time from the word go, that would obliterate SLS on both performance and cost. And the people upstairs HAVE to know this. I think it's fair to say we are sure they do.

How much longer is this farce going to continue? You might literally end up with more jobs over all if you canceled SLS right now and direct the money and workforce into payloads for Moon/Mars outposts instead and simply went to one of the aforementioned companies and said "build me a rocket with 68-85 MT to LEO by 2020".

And the best part would be the thing would actually get built as opposed to this Ares V part 2 laughing stock we have now.  I am just waiting for someone in Congress to find a way to use cancelling this as a political boone and broach the subject. It might happen sooner rather than later depending on how this fall goes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/25/2018 11:20 pm
...

NASA has learnt its lesson. The Falcon 9 and the Atlas V back each other up.


The USG has never before had back-up capability.  Saturn V -- no back-up.  Shuttle -- no back-up.  Today -- no capability.  Someday, when SLS is operational -- no back-up.

never before?

COTS - Falcon/Dragon + Antares/Cygnus
Military launches - Shuttle/Expendables (1980s)
Commercial Crew - Atlas/CST-100, Falcon 9/Dragon

All those capabilities proved to be useful (that actually have flown). When Antares/Cygnus failed, they had Falcon 9/Dragon. When that failed, they had Atlas/Cygnus. Even then, the astronauts were digging through the trash looking for stuff they could use. When Shuttle was removed from national security launches due to Challenger, the military had other vehicles to rely on.

Since NASA has 'learnt its lesson', and the military requires redundancy, should they be contracting with SpaceX (or whomever can build a SLS-class vehicle) to build a back-up to SLS/Orion?
I might be mis-understanding your post but just in case I am not:

Ridiculous. NASA has not learned anything. They have actually managed to forget more in the last 15 years than they learned in the rest of their history, a stunning achievement only a bureaucratic nightmare could achieve.

SLS back's up absolutely nothing. There is not a single military payload that will every fly on SLS, DOD will never ever do it because there are and always will be commercial vehicles that can do it for a fraction of the cost, and most likely more reliability. Do not forget that SLS currently relies on super large solid rocket motors, they are not known for their safety over liquid systems or smaller solids.

The idea that you need a backup at this point is even more absurd than the idea that you need SLS. This is the same logic we saw in 2007. "Oh we need Ares 1 and Ares V because they will be backups for ISS and the military." it never happened it was never going to happen ULA and others even told Congress and NASA it would never happen.

There are now four major Spaceflight companies in the US most of them have more than one launch vehicle, or at least have more than one planned. Then there is other players like SNC, Virgin Orbit, Rocketlab. You do not need a backup they can back each other up. SpaceX vehicle blows up go to ULA. ULA vehicle blows up go to Northrup. Northrup blows up go to BO. BO blows up I can almost guarantee on of the other three didn't blow up. And even if they all blow up it's still cheaper even with the lost payloads than a single SLS launch that is how absolutely insane this program has become. You could practically launch and maybe build all the NSS payloads for a year for the cost of one or two SLS flights. SLS is a joke.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/25/2018 11:27 pm
Since SpaceX is going to do refueling in LEO for BFR.  IF, another big IF, they develop refueling the second stage in orbit, would say a 40 ton payload launched on FH, then refuel the second stage.  Can this match TMI with SLS block II?  If so, then FH alone with refueling would probably be cheaper than SLS.  At that point would that kill SLS?  Or if New Glen gets going and could do refueling of their hydrolox second stage?  How about Vulcan w/ACES and refueling?  Seems to me refueling in LEO is going to be the way to go.  More vendors, more counties involved to, by using smaller launch vehicles to deliver fuel.  More launches = lower costs for all.  Why isn't NASA working on this instead?

SpaceX could kill SLS ( in terms of performance vs block 1 and cost/kg to orbit )  right now if they wanted to. I am relatively confident they aren't the only ones who could, but basically just build a raptor upper stage for Falcon Heavy block 5. That's about all they would need to do for an immediate solution.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/26/2018 03:01 am
Not saying they will do this, I think there are many reasons why they never would, but what if SpaceX started offering a raptor upper stage option for FH launches customer specific only?


Doesn't discussion about what upper stages SpaceX may or may not offer in the future belong in the SpaceX section of the forum?

SLS is a joke.

No my friend. The joke is the ad nausem declarations that SLS is doomed or that it is stupid or dumb or whatever other negative adjective you wish to ascribe to it. It is being built and at some point in the next few years it will lift off. Maybe a commercial company will create something with just as much or more capability in the near future. I hope they do, but the future isn't guarenteed.

Personally I'd rather the PoR continue with changes to make it better managed and more effecient vs. just throwing it all away and changing course yet again because reasons. Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.

Commercial is going to do what they are going to do regardless of SLS/Orion. The success or failure of commercial efforts are not dependent on SLS/Orion. That is a good thing.

Lets just go somewhere in space instead of having endless arguments about the perfect way to get there.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: darkenfast on 06/26/2018 03:33 am
Yep, let's just keep coughing up a ridiculous amount of money so that we have this big rocket that is just SOOOO awesome that it's worth a billion dollars a throwaway pop. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/26/2018 03:47 am
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/26/2018 04:07 am
SpaceX could kill SLS ( in terms of performance vs block 1 and cost/kg to orbit )  right now if they wanted to. I am relatively confident they aren't the only ones who could, but basically just build a raptor upper stage for Falcon Heavy block 5. That's about all they would need to do for an immediate solution.

I don't see it. A mere equivalent of SLS Block 1 in the form of FH-Raptor won't kill SLS at all, even if it costs zero dollar to taxpayers. Remember the whole Ares I debacle? Ares I already have an equivalent in the form of Delta IV Heavy, and it's super expensive and plagued with technical difficulties, yet it still kept going for quite a while, even after Griffin left office. To stop this train you need something far far superior so that it can send a shock that cannot be ignored, I think SpaceX is too clever not to know this, which is probably why they are not interested in pitting FH against SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TrevorMonty on 06/26/2018 08:56 am

 Do not forget that SLS currently relies on super large solid rocket motors, they are not known for their safety over liquid systems or smaller solids.

One SRB failure out of all the Shuttles flights.  The failure was caused by the fact that O-ring seals used in the joint were not designed to handle the unusually cold conditions that existed at this launch. More operational fault than design fault.

There have been lot liquid engined power LV failures over years. NB failures aren't always engine failures, some are fuel system eg F9 2 COPV failures. Shuttle its self, Altas V and maybe Soyuz are only LVs to come close to Shuttle SRBs for reliability.   
Even Atlas V is not perfect if you include the earlier versions it evolved from.

The only other large SRBs that I can think of are Ariane 5, no failures so far which is more than can be said for Iiquid stages.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/26/2018 02:13 pm

 Do not forget that SLS currently relies on super large solid rocket motors, they are not known for their safety over liquid systems or smaller solids.

One SRB failure out of all the Shuttles flights.  The failure was caused by the fact that O-ring seals used in the joint were not designed to handle the unusually cold conditions that existed at this launch. More operational fault than design fault.

There have been lot liquid engined power LV failures over years. NB failures aren't always engine failures, some are fuel system eg F9 2 COPV failures. Shuttle its self, Altas V and maybe Soyuz are only LVs to come close to Shuttle SRBs for reliability.   
Even Atlas V is not perfect if you include the earlier versions it evolved from.

The only other large SRBs that I can think of are Ariane 5, no failures so far which is more than can be said for Iiquid stages.

Titan 34D-9 and the D241 Delta II had catastrophic SRB failures. SRBs are very simple and quite reliable, but they don't really have benign failure modes that allow them to be shut down and the mission to continue. There have been several instances of that with liquid engines, including SSME and others.

And the issues with SRBs aren't just their own failures, but also crew escape in any instance during SRB firing. Aborting away from the raining fiery debris is not straightforward.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/26/2018 02:44 pm
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year. And we know historically that the Shuttle averaged $1.2B per flight, at the rate of 6-8 per year, so it's not unreasonable to expect the once-per-year SLS to cost far more than that.

Quote
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS).

The Shuttle rarely flew anywhere close to it's maximum capacity, so transportation systems are not always used to their maximum capacity in operational modes. Plus the components of the LOP-G, which is the only program being considered for the SLS right now, could be transported by other transportation systems if the SLS was not available. So no single payload requires the SLS.

Quote
Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Haven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't. It's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need - they are not always the same.

Quote
We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

We have not been "stuck". We have not left LEO because the U.S. Government did not have a need to leave LEO. We have not lacked the ability to leave LEO - we could have built a BLEO transportation system at any time after Apollo, but chose not to.

Again, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: jak Kennedy on 06/26/2018 02:45 pm
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!

If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/26/2018 07:17 pm
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

I say that if SLS can launch 100 tons to orbit, we should fund four such launches a year in 2018, 2019 and 2020.  Each launch should be funded for a billion dollars and the funding should be cash on delivery.  There should however be zero wiggleroom on either the date or the payload.  Even if they have to pad out the payload with concrete, they have to hit 100 tons and we should not allow for even a nanosecond of delay past the last day of the year.

If THAT happens, I will accept that it's "pretty awesome".  If that isn't happening, I consider it a mediocre design.  It's just giving us what other systems are giving us, but with a bigger second stage.  So why not just do the second stage and ditch the SLS?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/26/2018 08:06 pm
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.

In the post-Columbia era the shuttle flew around 4 times a year. I am referencing budget numbers from the end of SSP.

Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Quote
Haven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.

LOP-G has been funded. Look at the latest budget.

Quote
Again, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...

I think we have different understandings of the word "need". Your definition of "need" implies an absolute necessity, like a person "needs" water or food in order to survive. There are different levels of "need" though, not all of which are absolute necessities. Let me demonstrate with an analogy.

According to your definition I don't "need" to remember my wife and I's anniversary. My remembering the date or doing something to acknowledge the occasion is not an absolute necessity. We will still have access to water, food, and shelter regardless of whether I remember our anniversary or not.

That said, I think I do "need" to remember for reasons other than absolute necessity (my wife's happiness, my happiness, being a good example for other husbands etc.)

Space exploration, and specifically HSF to destinations like the moon and Mars, is not needed because it is an absolute necessity at the present time. Like I tell my students there is not one grand overarching reason why we go to space. It is a compendium of many reasons (technological advancement, scientific discovery, inspiration, eventual resource extraction, etc.) that together add up to a pretty compelling argument.

If humanity had followed your definition of "need" a lot of what has been accomplished in HSF to date would not have been attempted. The thing is in order to get to the point where a space economy can be created and the benefits are reaped by humanity intermediate steps must be accomplished first. Those intermediate steps don't seem like "needs" at the time but it turns out they are vital for the end goal. 

Even if they have to pad out the payload with concrete, they have to hit 100 tons and we should not allow for even a nanosecond of delay past the last day of the year.

No allowance for delays is completely unrealistic in the space business. No company or rocket currently flying could come close to the standard you propose.

Quote
If THAT happens, I will accept that it's "pretty awesome".  If that isn't happening, I consider it a mediocre design

Then you must consider FH a mediocre design since it was delayed 5 years.

Quote
So why not just do the second stage and ditch the SLS?

Because rockets are not legos.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/26/2018 08:21 pm
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Does Orion need SLS, or does SLS need Orion? Kind of hard to tell these days.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/27/2018 03:18 am
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Orion is in the same boat as SLS.

Which lunar lander require SLS? Let's name it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 04:30 am
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!

If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.

To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).

ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%

Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%

Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 05:06 am
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!

If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.

To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).

ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%

Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%

Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.

The difference between the ISS and SLS is that the ISS performs research as it's task. SLS will not discover any new thing, will not give any insight into cancer, the common cold or any other thing. It will just splash into the ocean after lifting a tiny capsule to a much smaller and much more limited facility. It is just plain transportation. The ISS on the other hand could be used to test long duration ECLSS and frankly likely has given loads of information about that subject and lots of others. I hate too say this but frankly exploration is a bit over rated at the moment given our limited ability and frankly the cost.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/27/2018 05:18 am
To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).

A more honest breakdown:
SLS/Orion/Exploration Ground Systems - 21.2%
ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%

Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%

SLS/Orion/Exploration Ground Systems are the same program, one cannot exist without the other two.

Quote
Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.

The boy genius became everybody's favorite because of their accomplishments and their future potential. SLS is not favored because it hasn't accomplished anything, nor is it projected to do anything useful.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/27/2018 05:41 am
My impression is that space fans are mostly meh on the ISS and think it's time to move on to something better.  It's just that very few people think that whatever the hell they're naming that station halfway to the moon is something better.  You appreciate what you have more when the prospective replacement is so bad.  If any of the next generation systems pan out and deliver much better capacities then ISS a few years from now, ISS isn't going to have much going for it but nostalgia.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 06:00 am
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!

If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.

To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).

ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%

Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%

Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.

The difference between the ISS and SLS is that the ISS performs research as it's task. SLS will not discover any new thing, will not give any insight into cancer, the common cold or any other thing. It will just splash into the ocean after lifting a tiny capsule to a much smaller and much more limited facility. It is just plain transportation. The ISS on the other hand could be used to test long duration ECLSS and frankly likely has given loads of information about that subject and lots of others. I hate too say this but frankly exploration is a bit over rated at the moment given our limited ability and frankly the cost.

If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/27/2018 06:25 am
what next...the IRS?

Pay your taxes or the next Orion capsule lands on your house.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 07:37 am


If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?

It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There  isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: llanitedave on 06/27/2018 03:36 pm
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Orion is in the same boat as SLS.

Which lunar lander require SLS? Let's name it.


What lunar lander doesn't?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 03:59 pm


If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?

It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There  isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.

Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 04:27 pm

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free.

Not quite. LEO is cheaper to access due to use of smaller rockets. Reusable rockets are also easier to create for LEO. Any spacecraft that travels somewhere is going to be more mass constrained than a space station. Any spacecraft that needs to land on a body even if it is earth is going to be more mass and volume constrained than a station. Some experiments are done on the station and the testing done on earth and so being able to return some cargo(hard on deep space missions) is important. Also being able to send new science is important which is harder to do on deep space missions(launch windows). Not to mention mission limitations(a ISS experiment could go on for years, a trip to the moon can't).


Quote
In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months.

The microgravity is for the experiments onboard not the astronauts. Also the radiation dose on a trip to Mars is greater than what you would get on the ISS in the same time period not to mention the fact that the longer the trip the more supplies you must pack. Travel from point to point with humans always favors quicker trips as there is no way to resupply a Mars mission frequently. Apples to Oranges here.  A good example would be Apollo if that moon thrip took five weeks instead of days you would need more food, oxygen, requiring a larger spacecraft, and the fuel cells system probably wouldn't be a mass saver and all of this would then force you to build an even bigger Rocket than the Saturn V to send the whole thing out.  So  when traveling faster trips are prefered.

Quote
I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity research in LEO. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.

And I think that a LEO station should be permanently manned hard to do with just 1.5 missions a year. I think we should just delete SLS from the equation, circle LEO for the next 50 years if we have to or try to find ways to get commercial much more involved in deep space flight or else there might not be a NASA worth saving if all of space fllight is just a handful of flights a year to a post that isn't permanently manned. Also with only 2 flights a year SLS isn't very capable of delivering a robust deep space program. Esp. if it takes like 6 years to assemble a Mars spacecraft that we are not sure is reusable or you don't have the cash to develop the hardware such as landers and Orion is questionable for missions beyond the moon.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 05:09 pm

Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.

As a I mentioned stationary can be a good thing and I am of the opinion that NASA like the Military should get out of rocket building. They should just fund commercial companies do this that way when new technology comes on the scene you can use it. Like the military did with the Falcon 9 and FH.  It is also far cheaper and more efficient esp. as the cost of said systems can be spread over multiple users. SLS if Congress is successful will chain NASA to 1970ies technology, 1970ies costs, 1970ies limitations and capabilities.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2018 05:15 pm
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Orion is in the same boat as SLS.

Which lunar lander require SLS? Let's name it.


What lunar lander doesn't?

All the ones actually under any kind of active development.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/27/2018 05:15 pm
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.

In the post-Columbia era the shuttle flew around 4 times a year. I am referencing budget numbers from the end of SSP.

Then you are using inaccurate information for comparison, since the Shuttle program costs were decreasing as the program ended.

Besides, I'm not sure what you think you are comparing? Unit cost? Operational costs? Color? They are two very different transportation systems, so they are not apples-to-apples from a top-level point of view.

Quote
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as this one from ULA back in 2009 (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/affordable-exploration-architecture-2009.pdf) that relied on nothing bigger than a Delta IV Heavy and created a reusable space infrastructure for conducting long-term operations on our Moon. ULA also addressed lunar exploration (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/dual-thrust-axis-lander-(dtal)-2009.pdf) and in-space refueling (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/evolving-to-a-depot-based-space-transportation-architecture.pdf).

We don't lack commercial transportation options.

Quote
Quote
Haven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.

LOP-G has been funded. Look at the latest budget.

Congress allocating some funding to explore an idea is not the same as Congress committing to fully funding a program. So far Congress is only allowing NASA to explore the idea of the LOP-G.

Quote
Quote
Again, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...

I think we have different understandings of the word "need". Your definition of "need" implies an absolute necessity, like a person "needs" water or food in order to survive. Let me demonstrate with an analogy.

According to your definition I don't "need" to remember my wife and I's anniversary.

Personal analogies are not appropriate for discussions of space hardware...  ;)

And don't conflate "personal need" with "national need". The Apollo program was a national need (i.e. government), not one the public wanted. Polls at the time showed that only during the time of Apollo 11 did the public think we needed to go to the Moon, yet it was our leaders that determined that because of the Cold War going to the Moon would provide us with an advantage over the USSR. Which is why Congress was willing to commit up to 4% of the federal budget* to the Apollo program (today NASA overall gets less than 0.5%).

As of today there is plenty of personal interest in our space community for sending government employees back to our Moon, very little public interest, and there is some scattered national interest that has officially recognized. But this has happened many times before, and interest does not equal commitment.

Commitment requires identifying a goal, recognizing the cost, and actually getting the full Congress to commit to the long-term funding of the effort. That has not happened yet for LOP-G, nor for a return-to-Moon program. It absolutely COULD happen, but has not yet.

* Edit - changed to "federal budget" - thanks ncb1397!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 06/27/2018 05:18 pm

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free.

Not quite. LEO is cheaper to access due to use of smaller rockets. Reusable rockets are also easier to create for LEO. Any spacecraft that travels somewhere is going to be more mass constrained than a space station. Any spacecraft that needs to land on a body even if it is earth is going to be more mass and volume constrained than a station.
Thats quite an expansive 'Any' there.

You are implicitly assuming that in space refueling is impossible, with 'smaller rockets'.
If you're restricting that to current vehicles - sort-of-fair enough, but you don't really get to do that if you're bringing SLS into it.

I question extremely also the 'more mass constrained' argument.
Taking as a concrete example BFS to the moon, per 7 launches (with a pre-positioned tanker in LLO) it gets the whole pressurised volume of ISS, and 100 tons of hardware, for far lower than the cost of a typical ISS module. (rather more if you leave the BFS on the moon).

Various commercial entities are making noises about on-orbit refuelling, or at least rapid reusability.

It doesn't seem very credible that fuel in orbit should continue to be valued at around >$10k/kg that SLS unitary launch does if you're talking about 50 years into the future.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2018 05:23 pm


If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?

It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There  isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.

Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.

SLS will not have the flight rate nor the performance to do a robust exploration program with it's current budget. To do that, we either need a larger budget or a cheaper rocket.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 05:31 pm
I don't know what year you are citing for the Shuttle, but it was funded to fly 6-8 times per year, whereas the SLS is currently only planned to fly about once per year.

In the post-Columbia era the shuttle flew around 4 times a year. I am referencing budget numbers from the end of SSP.

Then you are using inaccurate information for comparison, since the Shuttle program costs were decreasing as the program ended.

Besides, I'm not sure what you think you are comparing? Unit cost? Operational costs? Color? They are two very different transportation systems, so they are not apples-to-apples from a top-level point of view.

Quote
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as this one from ULA back in 2009 (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/affordable-exploration-architecture-2009.pdf) that relied on nothing bigger than a Delta IV Heavy and created a reusable space infrastructure for conducting long-term operations on our Moon. ULA also addressed lunar exploration (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/dual-thrust-axis-lander-(dtal)-2009.pdf) and in-space refueling (https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/default-source/exploration/evolving-to-a-depot-based-space-transportation-architecture.pdf).

We don't lack commercial transportation options.

Quote
Quote
Haven't needed it. And until LOP-G gets funded, still don't.

LOP-G has been funded. Look at the latest budget.

Congress allocating some funding to explore an idea is not the same as Congress committing to fully funding a program. So far Congress is only allowing NASA to explore the idea of the LOP-G.

Quote
Quote
Again, it's not a good idea to conflate capabilities with need...

I think we have different understandings of the word "need". Your definition of "need" implies an absolute necessity, like a person "needs" water or food in order to survive. Let me demonstrate with an analogy.

According to your definition I don't "need" to remember my wife and I's anniversary.
Which is why Congress was willing to commit up to 4% of our national GDP to the Apollo budget (today NASA overall gets less than 0.5%).

4% of the federal budget, not GDP. And even then, only for 2 years. And even then, Apollo maxed out at 70% of NASA's budget and so Apollo's cost never exceeded 3.5% of the federal budget. U.S. population is double the size, per person GDP is double again. So, that .5% of NASA today when you look at actual resources committed is within a factor of about 2 of the resources allocated during Apollo. If my income is $50,000 and I spend $20,000 on a car, that is 40%. If my income is $200,000 and I spend $40,000 on a car, I didn't commit less resources to the car even though that is 20%.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 06:01 pm


If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?

It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There  isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.

Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.

SLS will not have the flight rate nor the performance to do a robust exploration program with it's current budget. To do that, we either need a larger budget or a cheaper rocket.

I would suggest the following budget, all of which fits within the combined current 2018 HSF budget(Exploration/ISS combined) of ~9 billion.

SLS - $1.8 billion
Ground Systems - $.4 billion
Super Heavy lift #2 (backup/next-gen) - $1.3 billion
Orion - $1 billion
Exploration Crew Vehicle #2 (backup/next-gen) - .8 billion
LOP-G - $ .5 billion
In Space Vehicle #2 (backup)- .5 billion
lander # 1 (primary)- .9 billion
lander # 2 (backup) - .6 billion

3 COTS flights - $200 million each - $ .6 billion
1.5 CC flights - $300 million each -  $ .45 billion
LEO research - $ .15 billion
commercial LEO station development- .3 billion

total - 9.3 billion

As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

That is 5/6 new starts(6 if you count LOP-G) that SpaceX/Blue Origin/Axiom/Bigelow can compete for. They never got to compete for the ISS contracts. Theoretically, SpaceX could compete BFR for launch vehicle, BFS for lander #1, Dragon v3 for Exploration Crew Vehicle #2 and sweep 3 out of 6.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2018 06:16 pm


If a microgravity station was good bang for the buck for public health, NIH would be spending about 10% of their $37 billion budget to run ISS. NASA isn't a public health organization, and stripping funding from it to pay NIHs bills , even if they were experts on public health and would be the ones to run it, essentially guts NASA's mission. NASA isn't the department of education, it isn't the department of public health, what next...the IRS?

It isn't just public health it is just plain research and the NIH does more than research. Only NASA can build and run a station given 1990's technology and cost. Maybe we can move to a commercial station, but anything that LOP-G can do can likely be done cheaper in LEO. With something like SLS there just ism't much bang for th. The buck. It is just transportation. On earth we use commercially owned transportation for the most part(barring public transit) because there are reasons for a commercially owned entity to become more efficient. There  isn't any hope of SLS being more than a rocket that launches about twice a year at high cost carrying a few government employees to space. Other rocket systems in development have a chance to be more than this.

If you had a robust exploration program travelling to at least Mars/Lunar orbit/asteroids, the surface of the moon/mars, lagrangian points(you know...going places where people haven't been), microgravity crew time is essentially free. In fact, a lot of money and effort would be spent minimizing it, suggesting the value is actually negative. We are supposed to spend billions of dollars to expose astronauts for 6-12 months of continuous microgravity, then spend billions of dollars to get astronauts to Mars in 3-6 months rather than 6-8 months. Anyways, I would suggest 3 missions of dragonlab/cygnus/dream chaser and 1.5 missions per year of commercial crew to do microgravity in LEO research/maintain manned spaceflight while exploration spins up. The company losing out the most would be Boeing, so you guys should be all for it. Since there would be many new starts/competitions, when SpaceX/Blue Origin have come of age, they would be on a more even playing field rather than continuing programs from the 90s when they didn't exist. Total cost on the LEO side would be around a billlion, not counting research funding which probably should be paid for by NIH, DOE, NASA Science division, etc. as they would know what to fund and what is make work in their respective fields where funds would be better spent to advance their fields other places or in other ways.

Far too much value is being placed on the size of something. ISS is too big, too massive. It is impossible to move. On the other hand, Orion is 1/20th the mass. Lop-G is 1/10th the mass. Making them potentially more useful. Stationary is not a good attribute, which puts everything we should be building/using in the "It is just transportation" category as pathfinder_01 put it.

SLS will not have the flight rate nor the performance to do a robust exploration program with it's current budget. To do that, we either need a larger budget or a cheaper rocket.

I would suggest the following budget, all of which fits within the combined current 2018 HSF budget(Exploration/ISS combined) of ~9 billion.

SLS - $1.8 billion
Ground Systems - $.4 billion
Super Heavy lift #2 (backup/next-gen) - $1.3 billion
Orion - $1 billion
Exploration Crew Vehicle #2 (backup/next-gen) - .8 billion
LOP-G - $ .5 billion
In Space Vehicle #2 (backup)- .5 billion
lander # 1 (primary)- .9 billion
lander # 2 (backup) - .6 billion

3 COTS flights - $200 million each - $ .6 billion
1.5 CC flights - $300 million each -  $ .45 billion
LEO research - $ .15 billion
commercial LEO station development- .3 billion

total - 9.3 billion

As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.

And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 06:49 pm
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.

What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.

And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.

That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/27/2018 06:52 pm
1B is definitely at 6 years out and SLS 2 somewhere at 10+ years out if ever.

Both SLS versions could get overrun by BO's NA and SpaceX's BFR. This is because they have little to interfere with schedules and being able to optimally do progress at lower costs and faster rate because of little to no NASA oversight and no NASA or DOD requirements they have to build to other than make a reliable and human safe vehicle. Both have various levels of secure funding for their projects that is not likely to disappear, unlike SLS funding which is a ? each year.

Currently SLS enjoys enough congressional support to keep it funded. But the funding levels for the project are at its slowest progress rate to keep the program going and not almost stall it out completely. The major concern is not for SLS funding but the payloads that SLS would loft. There is movement of support seemingly away from SLS into Lunar mission payloads as the focus. Some of which, if not all, could be launched on even on the current or soon to exist commercial launchers FH, NG, Vulcan(ACES distributed launch) [<25mt to Lunar orbit].

The future is in flux from the standpoint of commercial launchers of the SHLV capacity to high orbits (Lunar). This puts NASA's SLS in a competition for NASA's own Lunar payloads/missions against cheaper and possibly even more capable commercial LVs that currenty exist (FH), soon to exist (NG and Vulcan(ACES DL), or could exist (BFR and NA) by mid 2020's.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 07:06 pm
Both have various levels of secure funding for their projects that is not likely to disappear, unlike SLS funding which is a ? each year.

This was said of the Falcon Heavy/Dragon circumlunar mission on this very forum before it was cancelled. The funding was secure because it wasn't the government. Companies cancel projects all the time. Jeff Bezos could get hit by a bus tomorrow. And I am pretty sure that the New Armstrong budget is currently essentially zero. So, that funding is likely secure because it is already zeroed out (when rounding to the nearest $100 million).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 07:43 pm
Quote
That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.

Not quite, the lander would have to be in development NOW to have a chance to show up in the next 6-10 years. There is no manned lander that needs SLS currently in development.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2018 07:47 pm
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.

What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.

And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.

That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.

An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface. Any extended duration stay requires a large hab and rover to be pre-placed. If you're using ISRU for water or oxygen that also needs to be pre-placed.

So the first two or three SLS missions are one-way, pre-placing infrastructure - which is great, but that takes several years due to the low flight rate. Or you can shift those to commercial, but then you might as well launch the lander on commercial as well since anything big enough to place the hab is big enough to place the descent vehicle.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 07:50 pm
Quote from: speedevil link=topic=38021.msg1833


Thats quite an expansive 'Any' there.

You are implicitly assuming that in space refueling is impossible, with 'smaller rockets'.
If you're restricting that to current vehicles - sort-of-fair enough, but you don't really get to do that if you're bringing SLS into it.

I question extremely also the 'more mass constrained' argument.
Taking as a concrete example BFS to the moon, per 7 launches (with a pre-positioned tanker in LLO) it gets the whole pressurised volume of ISS, and 100 tons of hardware, for far lower than the cost of a typical ISS module. (rather more if you leave the BFS on the moon).

Various commercial entities are making noises about on-orbit refuelling, or at least rapid reusability.

It doesn't seem very credible that fuel in orbit should continue to be valued at around >$10k/kg that SLS unitary launch does if you're talking about 50 years into the future.

What  I mean is that cost wise 1 or 2 flights of BFR could put the same amount in LEO as those 7 flights need to get to the moon and I am not sure how one counts BFR's habitability( ISS modules were designed to last 30 years....not sure how long BFR is supposed to last). I am all for in space refueling and love the BFR idea, but don't think it is going to sub for a LEO space station. Masswise the more mass you send to the moon, the more propellant you are going to have to lift. I am someone who thinks SLS unitary launch is perhaps an dated notion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/27/2018 07:56 pm


An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface. Any extended duration stay requires a large hab and rover to be pre-placed. If you're using ISRU for water or oxygen that also needs to be pre-placed.


Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/27/2018 08:12 pm


An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface. Any extended duration stay requires a large hab and rover to be pre-placed. If you're using ISRU for water or oxygen that also needs to be pre-placed.


Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....
Commercial.

Since any ISRU activities are likely to be Private/Public partnerships during development with total private during operations with the public buying services.

Commercial launch would be chosen because of cost. Scaling of per flight payloads would be part of the design to fit on the avialable commercial LV's and commercial cargo Lunar Landers.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 08:22 pm
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.

What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.

And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.

That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.

An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface.

Going outside let's them stretch their legs. Otherwise, they are just sleeping. Astronauts are selected based on claustrophia tests. Apollo did it for half a week. The difference between that and weeks psychologically may not be as great as you think. And besides, my scenario included a pressurized rover as heavy as SLS or equivalent can throw to the lunar surface(10 mT+, granted if you wanted to use all of it you would need a larger budget than the $1-2 billion previously mentioned), so doing multiples of Apollo's duration shouldn't be a problem. And yes, at 1 launch per year, this would take a year to set up.


Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....

If you take out ISRU for oxygen via the aluminum oxides, then we are talking about 2 kilograms of water per astronaut per day or 360 kg total for 2 crew for 2 months (food + water + oxygen). Given that the rover is being offloaded, and that weighed 210 kg on Apollo, this should be easily doable.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/27/2018 08:48 pm
As far as the flight rate of SLS being insufficient, it takes one flight of a 100mT+ launcher to return humans to the moon.

For a few days, and then you pack up and leave until next year. That's not a robust exploration plan. There's no funding in that budget for the extra vehicles and upmass needed for extended duration exploration.

What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's. Food is like a kilogram per day per person. Same with water. So, 120 man days is 240 kg. So, it could probably be pushed to a few weeks/months on just the lander...not even counting a pre-placed rover that is...a single launch potentially over multiple seperate sorties. The rover doesn't show up in the budget above because it is essentially rounding error. The Apollo one cost a couple hundred million total in today's cost. This would need to be pressurized, be able to recharge itself(or charge from a surface module/lander), etc so maybe on the order of $1 billion + over multiple years. So, we are talking about 1.3 SHLVs per year and 1 HLV per year for 1 mission that lasts weeks to months each year. And that is just one Block 1 For the SHLV as the lander get's offloaded to Falcon Heavy or whatever so it doesn't need to co-manifest anything.

And SLS won't be able to to a landing mission until Block 1B flies, at the earliest. Perhaps not until Block 2. So we're talking 6-10 years from now.

That is called just in time manufacturing. The launcher shows up about when the payload is ready.

An Apollo sized lander simply isn't big enough to spend weeks on the surface.

Going outside let's them stretch their legs. Otherwise, they are just sleeping. Astronauts are selected based on claustrophia tests. Apollo did it for half a week. The difference between that and weeks psychologically may not be as great as you think. And besides, my scenario included a pressurized rover as heavy as SLS or equivalent can throw to the lunar surface(10 mT+, granted if you wanted to use all of it you would need a larger budget than the $1-2 billion previously mentioned), so doing multiples of Apollo's duration shouldn't be a problem. And yes, at 1 launch per year, this would take a year to set up.


Not only that but lunar ISRU isn't a developed enough technology to build a lunar base that depends on it. It would likely be tested on the moon first beforehand and so you still need some commercial resupply and you will probably need resupply for ISRU parts. Which get delivered how? SLS or commercial....

If you take out ISRU for oxygen via the aluminum oxides, then we are talking about 2 kilograms of water per astronaut per day or 360 kg total for 2 crew for 2 months (food + water + oxygen). Given that the rover is being offloaded, and that weighed 210 kg on Apollo, this should be easily doable.

SLS Block 1B can't put Orion though TLI with a lander large enough to put 10 tonnes on the surface. Particularly since Orion can only go to high lunar orbit, and then you need at least 2500 m/s to get to the surface, and another 2500 to get back. I think 5 tonnes of surface payload (including the ascent stage) is generous in that case, even assuming hydrolox propulsion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 06/27/2018 09:04 pm
Can anybody point me to the LOP-G thread? It seems to have vanished...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/27/2018 09:25 pm
Not saying they will do this, I think there are many reasons why they never would, but what if SpaceX started offering a raptor upper stage option for FH launches customer specific only?


Doesn't discussion about what upper stages SpaceX may or may not offer in the future belong in the SpaceX section of the forum?

SLS is a joke.

No my friend. The joke is the ad nausem declarations that SLS is doomed or that it is stupid or dumb or whatever other negative adjective you wish to ascribe to it. It is being built and at some point in the next few years it will lift off. Maybe a commercial company will create something with just as much or more capability in the near future. I hope they do, but the future isn't guarenteed.

Personally I'd rather the PoR continue with changes to make it better managed and more effecient vs. just throwing it all away and changing course yet again because reasons. Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.

Commercial is going to do what they are going to do regardless of SLS/Orion. The success or failure of commercial efforts are not dependent on SLS/Orion. That is a good thing.

Lets just go somewhere in space instead of having endless arguments about the perfect way to get there.

It IS doomed and it can be factually proven it's doomed. Please take note many of us who advocated and even engaged in lobbying for an SDHLV years ago, who played a role in the 2011 space act, are now against SLS. What should that tell you?

SLS is not the vehicle we intended or even could settle for, it is also not the vehicle the act mandated since:
1. It was supposed to be operational by 2016.
2. The various blocks were supposed to meet critical IOC and mass targets, which they can't ever meet.
3. It was not supposed to waste the exact same amount of money as CXP with the same result.

If it was a salvageable program you would have already heard proposals for how to salvage it. Lack of leadership by the executive branch during the last two years of the previous administration, poor contractor oversight or lack there of, and absolutely terrible NASA management and also yes, poor direction by Congress have wrecked this program. Poor direction in the sense that the former CXP/Griffin lobby essentially was allowed to win out in the end slowly over time by forcing the biggest possible vehicle with the most complexity.

Also let me address this

Quote
I am happy to let the program of record continue

There IS NO POR. SLS was never a POR it was a vehicle that was meant to become part of a new POR. NASA and Congress never came up with a timeline, destinations, or even solid DRMs or goals for how to execute a program let alone a realistic program that could work on modern budgets. Instead the closest thing we got were pure fantasy DRMs and a 50 year Mars plan which is absolutely absurd considering private companies will at the very latest likely already be there within a 20 year window, and that is being very cynical. SLS was a vehicle program it was not intended to be THE program which replaced CXP. Barack Obama and his senate and NASA should have, and had the duty to come up with a program, none of them ever did so you now have only the vehicle and nothing to go with it, and no funding for things to go with it.

Ironically SLS still got farther than CXP in terms of pieces of the actual rocket being built and tested but it is a vehicle not a program of record.

Next up
Quote
Maybe a commercial company will create something with just as much or more capability in the near future.

Wrong. They already have it's called the Falcon Heavy. More are coming including but not limited to:
Upgraded FHB5
The Vulcan vehicle family
New Glenn
BFR
I would be surprised if Northrup ATK does not at some point decide to try and dip into making an upper range medium lift vehicle or low end HLV. Especially with all this political buzz of creating more military activity in space, that would vastly increase the tonnage capacity needed for domestic launchers and could be a major boon to low end HLVs.

And oh by the way SLS has yet to make a single operational flight . Yet here you are talking as if it is already a flying rocket. And oh by the way it's flight rate is going to be so god awful you can hardly call it an operational rocket, more like a bi yearly rocket at best.

Quote
Doesn't discussion about what upper stages SpaceX may or may not offer in the future belong in the SpaceX section of the forum?

Normally yes but you missed the entire point of the post. I could have used ULA ACES+Vulcan as an example instead but this was a much more easy device to use for demonstrating a very relevant point, and the point is that SLS is a joke and commercial companies could meet or exceed the payload of block 1 and be online very very rapidly, with hardware that more or less is on the table right now. Mis-directing is not an argument but nice try.

Quote
just throwing it all away and changing course yet again because reasons. Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.

There is nothing to throw away because everything has already been thrown away, it was called CXP post ESAS. We are already dealing with left over table scraps from the post Columbia era of policy making and the idiocy of Bush/Griffin/Obama wrt space policy. And as for changing course I got news for you, the course is changing whether you think you can control it or not.

One of two things is going to happen. Either people on the hill and more importantly within NASA wake up, and soon, and get a backup option for commercial BEO in place or we will have no official BEO policy within the next 4-6 years. Maybe sooner. I have said this time and time again, austerity is going to come to the USA whether people want to accept it or not, there is absolutely no choice involved in the matter it will be a matter of economic survival for the Federal Reserve and the country as a whole, sooner rather than later.

When the time comes for cuts what do you think is going to be cut first exactly? People's entitlements and food stamps, medicare and medicaid? Or do you think it will be easy targets like say a 10 billion dollar 10 year behind schedule HLV that is duplicated by at anywhere from 1-3 commercial vehicles that will exist by then/are in the process of being built now, that will cost a tiny fraction? They will simply cancel the program and the space lobby will dissolve or have already dissolved by then, leaving you with absolutely nothing and little or even worse no funding for commercial space.

Nobody is advocating cancellation without a plan, what is being advocated is common sense versus insanity and repeating the mistakes of CXP, venture star, and so many others. NASA already has Mars DRMs, flawed though they are, it is a starting point. Building the hardware for DSG/surface hab, ect, would allow you to retain some of the same workforce and contracting structure that preserves the hardware. Use the SLS funding for a program like this, give them a real timeline and goals for when we go where and to do what, then bid out COTS style for the launcher(s).

Last

Quote
Much better in my mind to have dissimilar redundancy (for less cost than STS BTW) for deep space HSF.

It provides no redundancy for anything this has already been covered. It will cost far more than STS on a per launch basis and will cost massively more in terms of development and overhead if you want a grand total on the accounting. There is absolutely no reality where this program costs less than STS the chance for achieving that died years ago.

This is not rocket science anymore it's rocket policy. Rocket policy is alot more cut and dry and alot more obvious, and it would be alot easier to figure out if people did what made sense instead of what benefits their personal constituent slush fund.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/27/2018 09:34 pm
And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

I say that if SLS can launch 100 tons to orbit, we should fund four such launches a year in 2018, 2019 and 2020.  Each launch should be funded for a billion dollars and the funding should be cash on delivery.  There should however be zero wiggleroom on either the date or the payload.  Even if they have to pad out the payload with concrete, they have to hit 100 tons and we should not allow for even a nanosecond of delay past the last day of the year.

If THAT happens, I will accept that it's "pretty awesome".  If that isn't happening, I consider it a mediocre design.  It's just giving us what other systems are giving us, but with a bigger second stage.  So why not just do the second stage and ditch the SLS?

SLS cannot launch 100 tons in it's current form and SLS will not launch in 2018 2019 or 2020. You will be lucky at this point if it launches by 2022 at the rate things are going.

Where is this coming from this idea people have that SLS is going to launch this year? I have been seeing alot of this in terms of public image, somehow people have gotten the idea we have a functioning vehicle already. Is NASA the cause of this disinformation or is it just confusion?

There is no vehicle right now just pieces of one that are behind and slipping further behind. No flight this year next year or the year after you can save this post if you want and nail it to your door.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/27/2018 09:44 pm
The projected US Federal deficit is so large now, they may well make severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public health services, humanities (all of them) and NASA.  Total debt is now $21T and will exceed $33T by 2028.  That's an annual deficit of $1T.  (Figures from the Congressional Budget Office, taking into account recent changes to the tax formula)    An expensive rocket with no important  missions will be easy to cut.

This could all change, if Congress reverses course.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/27/2018 09:49 pm
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's.

Yes, it's possible to operate under extremely thin mass margins with extremely heroic assumptions about ISRU.  But what's the freakin' point?  Unless your ISRU includes a magical black box where you feed in moon dust and tractors come out the other side, you aren't building anything.  You are talking about a mission mass to surface of under 20 tons minus the lander and the fuel to get them home alive.  You have maybe 10 tons of actual payload, ISRU, food, astronauts, scientific equipment, batteries, habitat.  All you are doing is taking surface samples and those surface samples are only good for anything if in the future you can deliver more then 10 measly tons to the surface.  That means you need something else instead.  You need a space tug or a reusable rocket and preferably both.  And if you need that, then why the hell bother with the SLS?  It's not going to develop into those things.

When a test pilot steps into an untested plane, they are doing it because that plane is worth something.  Either that plane is useful or that plane is testing a valuable technology.  Either way we care whether that plane flies or not.  If we dont care about whether the plane flies or not, we wouldn't risk the life of a test pilot.  And that's safe compared to what astronauts would be asked to do sending them to the moon on the razor thin margins you are talking about.  Yes, we sent the Apollo astronauts on those margins but back then we didn't have any technological alternatives.  Today, we have better options.

Both SLS versions could get overrun by BO's NA and SpaceX's BFR.

If we are talking about lunar deliveries then ACES deserves a mention and I will die on this hill.  Once you have a few ACES parked in orbit from satellite deliveries, you can use them to start leapfrogging fuel into higher orbits efficiently.  Because of the efficiency with leapfrogging you could get mass fractions just as high if not higher then a big dumb rocket while still bringing all your hardware back to LEO for reuse.  It's pretty good with ACES itself but if that orbital tug was getting it's fuel delivered to LEO by reusable rocket's it's dirt cheap.  Everytime SpaceX or Blue delivers ~200 tons of fuel to ACES in LEO you could put a 40 ton payload on the launch pad and fly straight to the moon.  Some people might think that's weak tea but it's a complete system with no additional hardware or fancy shit.  You dont need to pay for a logistics hub space station or launch 6 super-heavy rockets in rapid succession or shift cargo between vehicles.  It's a baseline with very minor adjustments to existing hardware and it's a pretty damn good baseline.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/27/2018 09:55 pm
Quote
So no single payload requires the SLS.

Orion does. A lunar lander does. Kind of important if we are going back to the moon.

Does Orion need SLS, or does SLS need Orion? Kind of hard to tell these days.

Had to make one more post to get this all across.

Orion flew on a DIVH for its first test flight. What does that tell you?
There is no payload current or planned that needs SLS. None. And there will be none because SLS will suck all the remaining money out of the room, it's already happening.

Quote
SLS/orion will cost around 3.8 billion per year STS cost 4.5 in 2010 dollars

The first half of this is entirely fake and made up. You have no idea what it will cost because the vehicle is not operational. First of all. Second of all how in the world do you figure that a vehicle which is larger and more expensive to build will cost less per year if it only flies at most once every OTHER year. Oh but wait there is more, it's not even the same vehicle year to year! You have to stand down and build an even bigger one for the next block before you fly again! We don't even KNOW how much it will reasonably cost to build each larger block the best we have are estimates from the same guys who were supposed to have block one flying by 2016!!!

There is absolutely no way to accurately determine that it will cost LESS than STS. The best you can hope for is that it costs the same or slightly more, as opposed to massively more, it will probably cost massively more.

Quote
One solid rocket failure out of hundreds of flights

The second COTS flight of Falcon 9 block one saw a main engine fail nearly explosively in flight. The vehicle continued to orbit. When is the last time a solid rocket motor exploded and the vehicle continued to orbit?
Oh by the way, the program itself requires new boosters for the larger blocks including the 130 MT vehicle. Liquid boosters are and have already been the preferred option due to cost among other things, although solid proposals still exist. You are missing the forest through the trees: how exactly does a vehicle that relies on costly, custom built, non-standard, and substantially riskier massive solid rocket motors provide REDUNDANCY to NSS payloads ????

It doesn't and this 'redundancy' claim is literally only being thrown up now as a last ditch attempt to justify the massive amount of money this vehicle is wasting. SLS was never intended to provide redundancy for national security payloads. The 70 MT vehicle was intended to provide redundancy for getting crew and some cargo to ISS in case commercial crew got delayed or failed, but we threw that entire vehicle out didn't we? What redundancy where, the only redundancy it could have provided was thrown away. Why is everyone ignoring this now like this is not a big deal? How many years now has it been since the HSF gap began

Quote
Because rockets are not legos.

No kidding. How come this logic is only being applied to your argument and not to reality? What national security or redundant payloads are going to fly on SLS the rocket that is a lego because commercial rockets aren't legos because MSFC says commercial is the great satan? What redundant missions are going to use the magic SLS lego rocket as a backup because somehow it will be flying and no other commercial vehicle will be able to loft the same payload?

This kind of thinking is exactly what gave us the last nightmare that was CXP, Augustine, and the aftermath. The definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over and expecting different results. Meanwhile the years are ticking by entire generations are getting older and living their lives and hundreds of billions of dollars are being thrown away. The moon and mars have not moved in space gotten bigger or gotten farther from the planet, the only thing that has changed is common sense seems to be dead in favor of this ambiguous wishy feeling based thinking.

I got one more piece of news for you. Hope and fuzzy warm feelings does not get you to Mars or fix a 28 billion dollars 22 year old mess. And the people who get charged with cutting and cancelling when the axe comes to grind are going to see it the same way.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/27/2018 10:04 pm
What are the limitations? Essentially oyxgen, power, water,food. 2 out of 4 can be generated in-situ even with just the mass budget of a lander the size of Apollo's.

Yes, it's possible to operate under extremely thin mass margins with extremely heroic assumptions about ISRU.  But what's the freakin' point?  Unless your ISRU includes a magical black box where you feed in moon dust and tractors come out the other side, you aren't building anything.  You are talking about a mission mass to surface of under 20 tons minus the lander and the fuel to get them home alive.  You have maybe 10 tons of actual payload, ISRU, food, astronauts, scientific equipment, batteries, habitat.  All you are doing is taking surface samples and those surface samples are only good for anything if in the future you can deliver more then 10 measly tons to the surface.  That means you need something else instead.  You need a space tug or a reusable rocket and preferably both.  And if you need that, then why the hell bother with the SLS?  It's not going to develop into those things.

When a test pilot steps into an untested plane, they are doing it because that plane is worth something.  Either that plane is useful or that plane is testing a valuable technology.  Either way we care whether that plane flies or not.  If we dont care about whether the plane flies or not, we wouldn't risk the life of a test pilot.  And that's safe compared to what astronauts would be asked to do sending them to the moon on the razor thin margins you are talking about.  Yes, we sent the Apollo astronauts on those margins but back then we didn't have any technological alternatives.  Today, we have better options.

Both SLS versions could get overrun by BO's NA and SpaceX's BFR.

If we are talking about lunar deliveries then ACES deserves a mention and I will die on this hill.  Once you have a few ACES parked in orbit from satellite deliveries, you can use them to start leapfrogging fuel into higher orbits efficiently.  Because of the efficiency with leapfrogging you could get mass fractions just as high if not higher then a big dumb rocket while still bringing all your hardware back to LEO for reuse.  It's pretty good with ACES itself but if that orbital tug was getting it's fuel delivered to LEO by reusable rocket's it's dirt cheap.  Everytime SpaceX or Blue delivers ~200 tons of fuel to ACES in LEO you could put a 40 ton payload on the launch pad and fly straight to the moon.  Some people might think that's weak tea but it's a complete system with no additional hardware or fancy shit.  You dont need to pay for a logistics hub space station or launch 6 super-heavy rockets in rapid succession or shift cargo between vehicles.  It's a baseline with very minor adjustments to existing hardware and it's a pretty damn good baseline.
I did mention Vulcan ACES distributed launch as one of the soon to exist not the list of could exist. The reason why I list ACES DL as soon to exist is market pressure. ULA must create a reason why Vulcan/ACES would be picked over other LVs. And do it quick. Otherwise they will just fold as a business, not quickly but ultimately over the next decade. Also ACES DL capability is not far from the first generation system of Centaur V. It is an upgrade of the US not a replacement. Upgrades are much lower costs and can be dome incrementally over many launches to prove out each subsystem in order of subsystem dependencies. Refueling capability being the last. ICE being the first (used for power to perform extended missions), then extra insulation for even longer coasts, followed by full IVF for extremely long coasts. Then ending with on-orbit refueling.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/27/2018 10:07 pm
Can we please just create a "Bash SLS/NASA/Orion/Government funded project" thread and leave the general discussion threads for more constructive posts?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 10:26 pm
When a test pilot steps into an untested plane, they are doing it because that plane is worth something.  Either that plane is useful or that plane is testing a valuable technology.  Either way we care whether that plane flies or not.  If we dont care about whether the plane flies or not, we wouldn't risk the life of a test pilot.  And that's safe compared to what astronauts would be asked to do sending them to the moon on the razor thin margins you are talking about.  Yes, we sent the Apollo astronauts on those margins but back then we didn't have any technological alternatives.  Today, we have better options.

What razer thin margins? A nominal mission would be months or weeks. They can return sooner if anything happens. Just keep a reserve of supplies of 5 or so days and return if anything goes wrong. Same as Apollo. Longer stays are completely optional and can be aborted from, with the technical problem fixed on the next mission(s). How much margin in life support do you think the commercial crew vehicles have if they can't de-orbit and they can't dock? Not much.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/27/2018 10:52 pm
The projected US Federal deficit is so large now, they may well make severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public health services, humanities (all of them) and NASA.  Total debt is now $21T and will exceed $33T by 2028.  That's an annual deficit of $1T.  (Figures from the Congressional Budget Office, taking into account recent changes to the tax formula)    An expensive rocket with no important  missions will be easy to cut.

This could all change, if Congress reverses course.

Economy grew in nominal dollars by 4.1% in 2017(not real gdp growth which backs out inflation) which means a 20.5 trillion dollar economy(2018) would grow to 21.34 trillion at the same rate by next year or an annual change of .84 trillion. So, we are talking about a gain in the debt of 160 billion over the change in the size of the economy. The net change in debt to GDP ratio would be 21 trillion(your numbers)/ 20.412 trillion(IMF estimate of U.S. GDP in 2018) or 102.88% to 22 trillion/21.34 trillion or 103.09% with a trillion dollar deficit. This is a net change of .21% per year or 2.1% over the next decade by 2028.

You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...
(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=usadebt2gdp&v=201802121827v)

And it should be noted that the OECD projects nominal gdp growth at 5% for 2019...

see: https://data.oecd.org/gdp/nominal-gdp-forecast.htm
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/27/2018 11:05 pm
There was "one solid rocket failure in hundreds of flights" only if by "failure" you mean "loss of mission".  In fact, before the redesign after Challenger, *most* Titan and STS SRBs experienced an internal failure (not behaving as intended) of exactly the kind that doomed 51L.  They just did not fail all the way.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/27/2018 11:14 pm
Quote
There IS NO POR. SLS was never a POR it was a vehicle that was meant to become part of a new POR.

Since we now have an Administrator who realizes the value of commercial and USG assets, can we build a new POR -- one that is based on an architecture that uses all assets that currently exist, and on-ramps additional assets as they become operational? 

Who needs to kick such an effort into gear?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Negan on 06/27/2018 11:16 pm
or launch 6 super-heavy rockets in rapid succession.

Let's not forget 150 tons to LEO per launch. I don't see how ACES competes with that. ACES still needs a spacecraft to accomplish anything so might as well just incorporate the fuel into the spacecraft and use its propulsion system if BFS refueling seems to arduous. Seems doable with a 150 ton mass budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AndersofOz on 06/27/2018 11:31 pm
SLS/Orion cost around $3.8 Billion a year in 2018 dollars. STS cost around $4.5 Billion a year in 2010 dollars. Sure SLS/Orion aren't cheap but they are hardly as expensive as the rhetoric portrays them to be.

And yes, a rocket that has the capability to launch ~100 tons to LEO and 24-40 tons to TLI is a pretty awesome capability (and we get it for less cost than STS). Haven't had that capability in over 45 years.

Maybe a commercial company will come up with something better and then that system will be used over SLS/Orion. Until that day comes I say stay the course. We have been stuck in LEO long enough.

When I started reading your figures, 3.8 billion, 4.5 billion, I thought you were going to attack the program. Instead you have become numb to the figures. And you sum up the whole problem with “stay the course”. Bad or failed government programs stay the course until even the blind can see!

If distributed lift had been tried for other than the ISS and found that bigger launch vehicles were needed then there might have been a smidgen or a reason to go with the SLS. The people spendingthe money, congress, are spending other people’s money. Their goals are not the same as the reason NASA exists.

To put this into perspective, this is NASA's budget breakdown sorted by size (2018 omnibus).

ISS - 18.9%
Planetary Science - 10.7%
SLS - 10.4%
Earth Science - 9.2%
Astrophysics - 6.6%
Orion - 6.5%
Exploration Ground Systems - 4.3 %
Space Technology - 3.7%
Heliophysics - 3.3%
Aeronautics - 3.3%
Exploration R&D - 1.9%
Education .5%

Cross Agency/Construction/Communication/Misc - 20.7%

Interesting that the most costly NASA program dedicated to the ambitious goal of travelling 100s of miles from earth and boldy going where the entire astronaut office has gone before gets no criticism simply because everybody's favorite boy genius gets a pretty big chunk of it. You can perfectly perform a useless task or imperfectly perform a useful task. The preferable option is the second one.

Your figures are a little misleading.  You have separated Orion, SLS and EGS into separate categories while leaving ISS as a single consolidated figure.

For example, in the 2019 FY NASA budget request, Orion, SLS and EGS are all included under the heading of 'Deep Space Exploration Systems'.  In terms of categories, ISS breaks down into ISS, Space Transportation and Space and Flight support.

To be accurate you need to compare either the totals or the sub-categories.  Using your figures, the total for  Deep Space Exploration is 21.2% of NASA's 2018 budget, which is higher than ISS at 18.9%.

Generally it is fraught to compare the two.  One is an operational program while the other is a developmental program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/27/2018 11:50 pm
The projected US Federal deficit is so large now, they may well make severe cuts to Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, public health services, humanities (all of them) and NASA.  Total debt is now $21T and will exceed $33T by 2028.  That's an annual deficit of $1T.  (Figures from the Congressional Budget Office, taking into account recent changes to the tax formula)    An expensive rocket with no important  missions will be easy to cut.

This could all change, if Congress reverses course.

Economy grew in nominal dollars by 4.1% in 2017(not real gdp growth which backs out inflation) which means a 20.5 trillion dollar economy(2018) would grow to 21.34 trillion at the same rate by next year or an annual change of .84 trillion. So, we are talking about a gain in the debt of 160 billion over the change in the size of the economy. The net change in debt to GDP ratio would be 21 trillion(your numbers)/ 20.412 trillion(IMF estimate of U.S. GDP in 2018) or 102.88% to 22 trillion/21.34 trillion or 103.09% with a trillion dollar deficit. This is a net change of .21% per year or 2.1% over the next decade by 2028.

You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...
(https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-government-debt-to-gdp.png?s=usadebt2gdp&v=201802121827v)

And it should be noted that the OECD projects nominal gdp growth at 5% for 2019...

see: https://data.oecd.org/gdp/nominal-gdp-forecast.htm

It should be noted, US GDP to Debt ratio is better than many large economies and is considered stable.  Japans GDP to Debt ratio is many times higher.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Oli on 06/27/2018 11:59 pm
You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...

The US is in the middle of an economic boom. Debt-to-gdp should be shrinking, not flatlining. Politicians failing at countercyclical fiscal policy as usual.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/28/2018 12:35 am
You can see that debt-to-gdp is essentially flatlining here...

The US is in the middle of an economic boom. Debt-to-gdp should be shrinking, not flatlining. Politicians failing at countercyclical fiscal policy as usual.
Bingo. This is exactly the point I have been trying to make for almost six months now every time SLS delays or related topics regarding what NASA should be doing come up.

Zubrin and others have been saying it far longer than me and better than me but it boils down to the following.

If you want to actually go somewhere, actually start an outpost or even a colony, and actually DO worthwhile things with space exploration particularly HSF, you must have a plan in place that produces real results and takes into account future budget cuts or restrictions !!!

This is the single biggest ultimate lesson learned from both Apollo and STS, and it is the single biggest lesson that always seems to be ignored and cast aside. I have heard every excuse made under the sun but the reality is that this is a political and economic law/ now and denying it would be akin to denying gravity exists.

SLS is the epitomy of a non plan that doesn't take future conditions into account. We are in the middle of a boom and as it stands right now NASA's budget is far smaller than most of us would like to see it, even so a tremendous amount is being accomplished with that money. So if that is the situation right now what will the situation be during the next economic downturn/contraction cycle, and what will be the politics of the day under those conditions ?

I do not want to go too off topic, but without going below the surface it should be painfully obvious to everyone by now that politics, particularly social politics, are increasingly more polarized and extreme each year that passes. Throw a future recession or downturn into that mix and it will be a very volatile atmosphere on capital hill. This is what I mean when I talk about what will be cut first. The debt is not going away and the margins of GDP to debt are very slim even as we are right now not taking into account a major future downward correction. This is one major reason why austerity or massive budget cutting measures are a likely scenario in the future. None of this is a guarantee or a given, but historically corrections always happen and the more pre-existing debt you have the more care has to be taken with spending during a severe correction. Now add the political aspect on top of that, it should be obvious what the risks are.

If we are going to get anything done in our lifetimes with regard to space exploration a plan which can operate under extreme budget conditions is what you need to have. The only thing that has any chance of working is commercial BEO. For a long time, in the past, I argued against this and believed in the opposite, that you needed a strong legal frame work (like the 2011 space act), backed up by congress and a strong lobby with a federal program to survive these types of things. I know now this is totally untrue because any election or hot button social issue can mean the end of the federal program.

The launcher is currently the single most expensive piece of the puzzle, when it literally does not have to be. The answer is obvious.

Quote
can there just be a thread for SLS bashing

No and there is a reason why there is so much "SLS bashing" as people are calling it. This program is continuing to have major problems major delays and you have managers making ridiculous comments, like my favorite one about taking 4-5 more years to build Block 1 vehicles from a few months ago. You cannot have an SLS discussion thread and expect to ignore these issues or how severe the problem is becoming, specifically the lack of management and leadership problem which is how SLS went from having a chance to being Ares V 2.0 in the first place. If SLS as a vehicle or proposal is somehow unable to take the scrutiny maybe that just proves everything we have been saying even more. Censoring or relocating criticism of this debacle will not stop it from being a debacle.

If we get some positive news regarding SLS schedule and budget the tune may change, though the underlying issues won't, but until that happens don't expect it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/28/2018 02:53 am
Then you are using inaccurate information for comparison, since the Shuttle program costs were decreasing as the program ended.

So you're saying SLS/Orion are even cheaper than shuttle was before Columbia?

Quote
You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as


I'll grant there are some lunar lander concepts that don't require an SLS sized rocket. Not all concepts though have the smaller amount of dry mass needed to be launched on a commercial rocket.

Quote
Congress allocating some funding to explore an idea is not the same as Congress committing to fully funding a program. So far Congress is only allowing NASA to explore the idea of the LOP-G.

$0.5 Billion is a lot of money for "exploring an idea." Commercial crew only got $50 Million in its first budget cycle and it is on the verge of being operational.

Quote
Personal analogies are not appropriate for discussions of space hardware...  ;)

Maybe you could have recognized my analogy as an honest attempt to build understanding rather than saying I am being "inappropriate".

Quote
Commitment requires identifying a goal, recognizing the cost, and actually getting the full Congress to commit to the long-term funding of the effort. That has not happened yet for LOP-G, nor for a return-to-Moon program. It absolutely COULD happen, but has not yet.

The problem with this line of thinking is that NASA will likely never again get the kind of support that it got under Apollo. That was a once in a lifetime confluence. You propose that unless a HSF program gets Apollo levels of support it shouldn't be attempted. I disagree. NASA doesn't need Apollo levels of support in order to run a robust HSF program that combines the strengths of government and commercial space.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/28/2018 03:36 am
Censoring or relocating criticism of this debacle will not stop it from being a debacle.

There is already censoring regarding SLS criticisms, for example the Jack Schmitt piece on SLS was moved to Space Policy then locked, that thread doesn't belong to Space Policy at all, it's a technical discussion regarding the merit of SLS, it belongs here. Now the LOP-G thread was also moved to Space Policy.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/28/2018 03:37 am
It IS doomed and it can be factually proven it's doomed.

I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.

Quote
1. It was supposed to be operational by 2016.

Since when has any LV been on time? I am as frustrated by delays as the next person but there is such a thing as unrealistic expectations. This is one of them.

Quote
If it was a salvageable program you would have already heard proposals for how to salvage it.


Well I think the LOP-G and the plan to initially use Block I's are a pretty good plan to help salvage the program.

Quote
Also let me address this

Quote
I am happy to let the program of record continue

I never said I was "happy". I said I would rather the program continue under better management. I am not blind to the issues the PoR has been having.

Quote
Ironically SLS still got farther than CXP in terms of pieces of the actual rocket being built and tested but it is a vehicle not a program of record.

It is part of the current PoR which includes SLS/Orion/EGS and now LOP-G.

Quote
Wrong. They already have it's called the Falcon Heavy.


Let me state here that I love the Falcon Heavy. I was stopping class to make sure my students saw the video of its first launch. It is a monumental achievement. I cried when I saw it launch. What I am about to say is no knock on FH.

That said, FH's payload capacity (fully expendable), is around 63 mt to LEO and somewhere around 20 mt to TLI. Very close to SLS Block I to be sure but not exactly the same. Also, the intended use of the FH is in its fully reusable mode. This drops its payload capacity to the point where it isn't nearly as close to SLS Block IB or even Block I.

Quote
The Vulcan vehicle family

Still in development. There have been discussions though over ULA's ability to get this done. I think they will but if I remember the payload numbers correctly Vulcan wouldn't approach SLS's capability without distributed lift.

Quote
New Glenn

Still on paper. Still in early stages of development. Payload capacity less than FH.

Quote
BFR

Same as NG but farther along with actual components. Still in early stages of development.

Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.

Quote
When the time comes for cuts what do you think is going to be cut first exactly? People's entitlements and food stamps, medicare and medicaid?


If we get to that point commercial vs. government space flight will be the least of anyone's concerns.

Quote
They will simply cancel the program and the space lobby will dissolve or have already dissolved by then, leaving you with absolutely nothing and little or even worse no funding for commercial space.


How exactly will SLS continuing development (or getting canceled) affect commercial space? From what I can tell Elon is planning on building BFR without government funds. Do you want commercial LVs to be tied to the government dime?

Quote
It provides no redundancy for anything this has already been covered. It will cost far more than STS on a per launch basis and will cost massively more in terms of development and overhead if you want a grand total on the accounting. There is absolutely no reality where this program costs less than STS the chance for achieving that died years ago.

I see you picked the "per launch" metric. I am talking about overall cost. STS cost around $210 Billion in total. Lets assume SLS/Orion spending goes up to say $8 Billion a year (a doubling of the current budget). Even if the program ran for 20 more years (2018-2038) you would end up with a total spent of around $180 Billion or so counting development costs. That is still cheaper than STS and the 20 year assumption is probably inaccurate given the commercial sector's abilities.

Orion flew on a DIVH for its first test flight. What does that tell you?

That Orion was flying without its service module and thus it fit inside DIV's payload capacity.

Quote
The first half of this is entirely fake and made up.


I was quoting budget numbers from this year. Go back and read my post.

Quote
There is absolutely no way to accurately determine that it will cost LESS than STS.

I just did up-post.

Quote
SLS was never intended to provide redundancy for national security payloads.


I don't know about others but my argument for redundancy was based on deep space exploration, not national security payloads.

Quote
What redundant missions are going to use the magic SLS lego rocket as a backup because somehow it will be flying and no other commercial vehicle will be able to loft the same payload?

The lego remark was directed at a statement that all that was needed to match SLS was a powerful enough second stage and that it could just be put on any rocket. I disagreed.

Edited (6-29-18) to correct inaccuracies regarding BFR and NG.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/28/2018 03:47 am

Where is this coming from this idea people have that SLS is going to launch this year?


I never said SLS was launching this year. I know that we are looking at the 2020 timeframe for EM-1.

Censoring or relocating criticism of this debacle will not stop it from being a debacle.

No one is suggesting debate be censored. What I personally am tired of is hearing the same old arguments for ending the program trotted out over and over and over again. Also it doesn't help that some opponents of the SLS will not restrict their remarks to the facts and instead attack the program and anyone who might be a fan of the rocket with personal animosity.

I don't mind people saying "its not a good idea because of x, y, z". What I mind are the "SLS is a joke, its stupid, its worthless, if it were a horse it would be shot" comments and the personal animosity towards the program.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/28/2018 05:16 am
I did mention Vulcan ACES distributed launch as one of the soon to exist not the list of could exist.

So you did, my bad.

Quote
The reason why I list ACES DL as soon to exist is market pressure. ULA must create a reason why Vulcan/ACES would be picked over other LVs. And do it quick.

If they just transfer their existing Atlas/Delta contracts to Vulcan, that's already enough business to sustain Vulcan long enough to make ACES exist.  ACES is a much more complicated question because it's five years in the future but as far as it pertains to SLS it's very simple.  By the time SLS block 1b could exist, Vulcan-ACES could be ready to service those missions at lower costs and higher capability.  So if there really is a desire to do these SLS missions, it's a useful point of comparison.

What razer thin margins?

When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/28/2018 05:46 am

When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.

I don't think it is less than ISS. There have been 3 cargo supply flights to the ISS this year: Progress MS-08, SpaceX CRS - 14, CRS OA-9E. That is a flight every 2 months with the MS-08 flight for example being 420 kg of water and 46 kg of oxygen for about 6 people. Divide that by 3 because we are only talking about 2 crew on the moon per lander and that is 16 kg of oxygen(which is more or less interchangeable with water via electrolysis) and 140 kg of water for the same 60 days. I said 2 kg per person per day or 240 kg of water for 60 days which is comfortably above ISS. Likewise, the CRS - 14 manifest looked like this:

Quote
Science investigations: 1,070 kg (2,359 lb)
Crew supplies: 344 kg (758 lb)
Vehicle hardware: 148 kg (326 lb)
Spacewalk equipment: 99 kg (218 lb)
Computer resources: 49 kg (108 lb)
Russian hardware: 11 kg (24 lb)
External payloads: 926 kg (2,041 lb)
Atmosphere-Space Interactions Monitor (ASIM)
Materials ISS Experiment Flight Facility (MISSE-FF)
Pump and Flow Control Subassembly (PFCS)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_CRS-14

So, water + O2 is < 344 kg for that flight or <.95 kg per person per day if that has to cover 60 days for a crew of 6. Worse comes to worse, they would have to leave their gorilla suit at home:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0lpiXAHuyA
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 06/28/2018 09:16 am
{snip}
You should know that there are many proposals for lunar landers that rely on commercial transportation systems, such as


I'll grant there are some lunar lander concepts that don't require an SLS sized rocket. Not all concepts though have the smaller amount of dry mass needed to be launched on a commercial rocket.
{snip}

There are several launch vehicles that can send a 20 tonne dry mass lander to LEO. If the lander has a delta-v of 5.04 km/s then it can ferry itself to the Moon by refuelling in LEO and either in EML-1 or at the LOP-G.

Western launch vehicles with 20 tonne payloads include Ariane 5, Delta IV Heavy and some Falcons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy-lift_launch_vehicle)

LEO to EML-1 requires 3.77 km/s
LEO to low lunar orbit is 4.04 km/s (similar to LOP-G's orbit)
EML-1 to lunar surface and back is 2 * 2.52 = 5.04 km/s

List of delta-v budgets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget)

The turtles are here so if the SLS and Orion wish to stay in the Moon race they will have to wake up and start running.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/28/2018 01:16 pm
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.

If the goal is to create a robust exploration program, then we need two things: affordable launch, and the ability to refuel and resupply in space without returning to Earth. Without those things we cannot go further or stay longer than Apollo.

SLS does neither of those. The way to affordable launch is to increase the launch rate, not pile everything onto a single vehicle once a year. This would have worked with EELVs, but now that commercial competition (and partial reuse) has arrived in EELV, so much the better.

What the Exploration program really needs to be developing is on-orbit fuel storage and transfer (both cryogens and storables), and in-space vehicle refurbishment and resupply, and orbital transfer vehicles.

That is, if the goal is really a robust and sustainable exploration program. Except that's not really the goal with SLS and Orion, is it?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ThereIWas3 on 06/28/2018 02:54 pm
I think a better way to move manned exploration forward is to improve the life support systems, not build uneeded rockets.  The technology currently in use on ISS is fragile and breaks down all the time, requiring a lot of crew time to tinker with.   No way those scale up to interplanetary missions.  NASA's labs, as well as SpeceX, are working on new designs for, for example, the CO2 scrubber.

We know how to build the necessary rockets for this kind of exploration.  Propulsion is pretty well understood and several designs are being worked on in various stages.  It is all that other stuff that keeps astronauts alive that needs help.  How many space walks have had to be cancelled due to water leaks inside the helmets?   Those EVA suits are also painful to wear, with a lot of damage to the hands.  Ammonia leaks.  Power distribution boxes mounted outside that need servicing.   We still need EVAs to do outside plumbing repairs???  The Russians have been doing in-flight refueling with automatic rendesvous and plumbing connections for years - where is the equivalent NASA tech in that area?

Lets close and consolidate Stennis and MSFC and work on these areas where things are actually not up to the job.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/28/2018 03:07 pm

When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.

I don't think it is less than ISS.

The hardware mass is what I was referring to.  The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.

I think a better way to move manned exploration forward is to improve the life support systems, not build uneeded rockets.  The technology currently in use on ISS is fragile and breaks down all the time, requiring a lot of crew time to tinker with.   No way those scale up to interplanetary missions.  NASA's labs, as well as SpeceX, are working on new designs for, for example, the CO2 scrubber.

Not to mention that if these missions are supposed to be going anywhere the scale needs to be much, much bigger.  If we want a real moon base, it can't be oxygen for two people, it needs to be oxygen for 100 people plus additional liquid oxygen for the landers to take back to the rockets.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/28/2018 04:50 pm

When you are talking about running life support on less mass then the ISS while on a much more precarious supply line, it's a razor thin margin.

I don't think it is less than ISS.

The hardware mass is what I was referring to.  The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.

I think a better way to move manned exploration forward is to improve the life support systems, not build uneeded rockets.  The technology currently in use on ISS is fragile and breaks down all the time, requiring a lot of crew time to tinker with.   No way those scale up to interplanetary missions.  NASA's labs, as well as SpeceX, are working on new designs for, for example, the CO2 scrubber.

Not to mention that if these missions are supposed to be going anywhere the scale needs to be much, much bigger.  If we want a real moon base, it can't be oxygen for two people, it needs to be oxygen for 100 people plus additional liquid oxygen for the landers to take back to the rockets.

We have to perfect ECLSS for 2 people first before you test it out on 100 people in BLEO.  We haven't been beyond LEO for nearly 50 years, we're not starting from scratch, but to make the leap that we're suddenly ready to sent 100 people to the moon for months or years on end is ridiculous. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Negan on 06/28/2018 04:51 pm
Also, the intended use of the FH is in its fully reusable mode.

Which is an awesome feature, not a limitation! Trying to paint it as some kind of disadvantage to SLS is a totally bogus argument. Considering Musk already presented the expendable price of FH, it's apparent that SpaceX has no issue expending one if paid to. We also know that expending a FH adds nothing to the complexity of the launch.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: speedevil on 06/28/2018 05:06 pm
We have to perfect ECLSS for 2 people first before you test it out on 100 people in BLEO.  We haven't been beyond LEO for nearly 50 years, we're not starting from scratch, but to make the leap that we're suddenly ready to sent 100 people to the moon for months or years on end is ridiculous.
No, we don't.

We need to have ECLSS that works, and is reliable enough to preserve the life of the crew in worst case accidents.
For example, for the moon, having a ship on station that can evacuate everyone to earth if the life support fails, plus backup open-loop life support for a month, plus a distributed ECLSS architecture would be quite adequate.

This is considerably heavier perhaps than a 'perfect' system, but has the considerable advantage it can be implemented today.

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/28/2018 05:16 pm
Not to mention that if these missions are supposed to be going anywhere the scale needs to be much, much bigger.  If we want a real moon base, it can't be oxygen for two people, it needs to be oxygen for 100 people plus additional liquid oxygen for the landers to take back to the rockets.

The ISS doesn't meet your criteria for manned human spaceflight minimum crew size. And before you build a 100+ person base, you would want multiple site survey teams characterizing many sites to determine the suitable location. And even if you had a 100 person base, a vehicle sized for 2 of them would still be useful. But I think you will just come back with the suggestion of using the required electromagnetic levitation monorail network that you obviously need for your base.

Quote
The hardware mass is what I was referring to.  The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.

40 mT to TLI translates to at least 13 mT on the surface given the following conservative lander specs:

lander dry mass: 4,000 kg
lander fuel: 23,000 kg
lander fuel fraction: 85%
lander isp: 330
payload 13,000 kg
delta v with max payload: 2700-2800 m/s

total launch mass: 40,000 kg

So you are suggesting that 52-104 mT of the station's mass is life support equipment? There aren't that many components in the core ISS life support system. Two CDRAs for carbon dioxide removal, of which they usually only have 1 operating. Here is a video of some astronauts working on it at 18:03:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_o0VmZFEu4

That couldn't weigh more than a couple hundred kilograms although I am not finding the exact mass at the moment.

The Oxygen Generation Assembly produces oxygen from water and I can't find the exact mass, but the paper linked below lists the total hardware to operate the system for 7+ years at 2077 pounds or 942 kg including replacement parts which wouldn't be required for a 2 month duration.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160014553.pdf

I could go on, but I find it very unlikely that it is all going to add up to 52-104 mT. Besides Orion is around 15 mT unfueled and that provides for 84 man days of life support or 42 days for 2 people. So, worse comes to worse you offload the heavier bits to the 13 mT+ rover. That would make sense as the rover is used for multiple stays, which pays for the long duration equipment(mass wise) better and you don't have to lift that stuff back off the surface on the ascent stage as it really isn't useful for that leg.

Anyways, the point is that crews are not limited to stays of a few days which was the original contention.


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/28/2018 06:38 pm
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.

If the goal is to create a robust exploration program, then we need two things: affordable launch, and the ability to refuel and resupply in space without returning to Earth. Without those things we cannot go further or stay longer than Apollo.

SLS does neither of those. The way to affordable launch is to increase the launch rate, not pile everything onto a single vehicle once a year. This would have worked with EELVs, but now that commercial competition (and partial reuse) has arrived in EELV, so much the better.

What the Exploration program really needs to be developing is on-orbit fuel storage and transfer (both cryogens and storables), and in-space vehicle refurbishment and resupply, and orbital transfer vehicles.

That is, if the goal is really a robust and sustainable exploration program. Except that's not really the goal with SLS and Orion, is it?

This is a concise summary of where we stand. 

Do we want a robust and sustainable exploration program?
That is the question...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/28/2018 10:30 pm
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.

If the goal is to create a robust exploration program, then we need two things: affordable launch, and the ability to refuel and resupply in space without returning to Earth. Without those things we cannot go further or stay longer than Apollo.

SLS does neither of those. The way to affordable launch is to increase the launch rate, not pile everything onto a single vehicle once a year. This would have worked with EELVs, but now that commercial competition (and partial reuse) has arrived in EELV, so much the better.

What the Exploration program really needs to be developing is on-orbit fuel storage and transfer (both cryogens and storables), and in-space vehicle refurbishment and resupply, and orbital transfer vehicles.

That is, if the goal is really a robust and sustainable exploration program. Except that's not really the goal with SLS and Orion, is it?

This is a concise summary of where we stand. 

Do we want a robust and sustainable exploration program?
That is the question...
The summary is concise but that is not the question. That has never been the question, the answer has always been yes and the American people are more interested now than they have been in many decades, thanks in part to disruptors like SpaceX. There is alot more interest in space exploration especially among the Gen Y and Gen Z than I think people in the industry realize, the problem is that it's very hard for people to dedicate their life and their choice of college education and career path to this when NASA has no direction and continues to announce delays and wasted money.

The question is not do we want to do this, we do, the question for the past 15 years has been HOW do we do it the quickest cheapest and most sustainable way? That is where things keep getting hung up and mucked up because that question often gets complicated by political concerns.

I cannot see an objective logical or data based argument for continuing SLS. Nobody including NASA itself has yet presented a reason for this vehicle to exist in its current form given current day realities. When a real argument based on real facts is presented and/or SLS has some good news for once to back it up, maybe then it will be worth another look. As it stands now a commercial COTS style BEO program for the launch vehicle is the objectively best option, and the quickest, and the cheapest. I do not agree with the argument that this was always the case, I have explained why in my previous posts, but it is the case now in 2018.

And as for the more relatively recent interest in space exploration this will not last forever. Another 2007-2009 style economic meltdown, another major war or event such as 9/11, any such major world altering events will decimate that interest because people will find themselves more pre-occupied with surviving whatever is going on than science and technology. To say nothing of the funding issues already discussed previously. This is the single biggest frustration I have with SLS and it's remaining supporters. The clock is ticking, too much time has been wasted already on failed programs and delays, and the clock is ticking on all of this. Private companies are racing to do as much as they can to get BEO with very limited resources as fast as they can, why is it that NASA thinks time is not a resource anymore?

The real question I would counter, is how we fix this mess permanently and get a working program off the ground. COTS worked for ISS. It could work for BEO and things like LOPG as well.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 06/28/2018 10:42 pm
Quote
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.
Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.

This is the exact thing, almost word for word, that Doug Cooke and Mike Griffin used to tell us. In fact we even had, at one point, someone from MSFC in the final days of CXP post Aug Com come onto this site and make a thread where they tried to argue vehemently that the program had nothing wrong with it and would not be cancelled. This was after an expert panel had already recommended cancellation to the Congress and the POTUS, and everyone including the engineers within the program had already known it was done for.

The reason I know you are wrong is because we literally did this exact song and dance before 10 years ago. Denial of the facts, particularly the budgetary, timeline, and engineering facts of a program like this does not save the program.

Quote
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program

I can almost certainly guarantee you there are people in Congress with these plans in mind already. There are also some within NASA including those who never wanted SLS to start with. They are currently the minority but who constitutes the makeup of Congress may be about to change yet again. By the time you see "actual plans in motion" it will already be over with, the only thing you will see is maybe a similar panel or committee meeting to Augustine and then actual cancellation. The Todd May comments from a few months ago are bad enough as it is, so too are many of the SLS presentations recently, which depict a program and that is barely or not functioning at all. This is all very very similar to CXP in 2007 and 2008, way too similar in fact with the only major differences being:
1. Some elements of SLS are built.
2. Orion is built, sort of.

As opposed to nothing being built. Unfortunately it's still not anywhere near enough for the money and time spent or the legal obligations of the space act.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/28/2018 11:00 pm
Quote
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.
Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.

This is the exact thing, almost word for word, that Doug Cooke and Mike Griffin used to tell us. In fact we even had, at one point, someone from MSFC in the final days of CXP post Aug Com come onto this site and make a thread where they tried to argue vehemently that the program had nothing wrong with it and would not be cancelled. This was after an expert panel had already recommended cancellation to the Congress and the POTUS, and everyone including the engineers within the program had already known it was done for.


"Aug Com" as you put it made no recommendations. And if you have such respect for the Augustine Commission's wisdom, they essentially invented SLS. They called it Ares V lite. There is a lot of miss characterization about the Augustine Commision's report, mainly because those who opine about it probably never have read it.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/28/2018 11:25 pm
Quote
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program before I accept that SLS is "doomed" and will never do anything useful.
Not sure it's worth responding to the rest of this post since this piece right here sums up the problem with the rest of the post entirely.

This is the exact thing, almost word for word, that Doug Cooke and Mike Griffin used to tell us. In fact we even had, at one point, someone from MSFC in the final days of CXP post Aug Com come onto this site and make a thread where they tried to argue vehemently that the program had nothing wrong with it and would not be cancelled. This was after an expert panel had already recommended cancellation to the Congress and the POTUS, and everyone including the engineers within the program had already known it was done for.

The reason I know you are wrong is because we literally did this exact song and dance before 10 years ago. Denial of the facts, particularly the budgetary, timeline, and engineering facts of a program like this does not save the program.

Quote
I'll wait to see actual plans in motion to cancel the program

I can almost certainly guarantee you there are people in Congress with these plans in mind already. There are also some within NASA including those who never wanted SLS to start with. They are currently the minority but who constitutes the makeup of Congress may be about to change yet again. By the time you see "actual plans in motion" it will already be over with, the only thing you will see is maybe a similar panel or committee meeting to Augustine and then actual cancellation. The Todd May comments from a few months ago are bad enough as it is, so too are many of the SLS presentations recently, which depict a program and that is barely or not functioning at all. This is all very very similar to CXP in 2007 and 2008, way too similar in fact with the only major differences being:
1. Some elements of SLS are built.
2. Orion is built, sort of.

As opposed to nothing being built. Unfortunately it's still not anywhere near enough for the money and time spent or the legal obligations of the space act.

Pot calling the kettle black?  SLS is the cause of Gen Y & Z not going into aerospace??

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that. 

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2018 12:22 am
...

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.

Once BFR is built, flying, and certified -- at zero cost to the taxpayers -- you'll no doubt find another strange rationale to oppose cancelling the POR. 

SLS should stand on its merit, or fail.  Merit must include value for the tax dollars spent and timely delivery of the procured vehicle. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 05:45 am
...

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.

That is about what you would expect. The spread between LEO and BLEO during the 1960s was $1.6 billion for Mercury, $7.3 billion for Gemini and $109 billion for Apollo or a factor of 12x(Apollo:Gemini+Mercury). All of these are in 2010 dollars. There were 6 manned Mercury missions, 10 manned Gemini missions and 11 manned Apollo flights when comparing Apollo to Gemini and Mercury combined...so a similar number of flights. The development side of commercial crew is $6.3 billion, a similar cost to Gemini and Mercury combined when you inflate to today's costs and add in the operational commercial crew mission costs.  Applying the same 12x factor to the commercial crew development cost would be $75.6 billion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2018 11:49 am
...

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.

That is about what you would expect. The spread between LEO and BLEO during the 1960s was $1.6 billion for Mercury, $7.3 billion for Gemini and $109 billion for Apollo or a factor of 12x(Apollo:Gemini+Mercury). All of these are in 2010 dollars. There were 6 manned Mercury missions, 10 manned Gemini missions and 11 manned Apollo flights when comparing Apollo to Gemini and Mercury combined...so a similar number of flights. The development side of commercial crew is $6.3 billion, a similar cost to Gemini and Mercury combined when you inflate to today's costs and add in the operational commercial crew mission costs.  Applying the same 12x factor to the commercial crew development cost would be $75.6 billion.

NASA math...  SLS/Orion is a bargain!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Proponent on 06/29/2018 02:32 pm
... if I remember the payload numbers correctly Vulcan wouldn't approach SLS's capability without distributed lift.

What's wrong with distributed lift?  After all, NASA's own Mars architecture (the Evolvable Mars Campaign) uses it.  It seems to me that a rocket that NASA might hope someday to launch once a year is pretty obviously too large.

Quote
Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon.

I agree that it is uncertain when or even whether BFR, for example, will be available.  It would be irrational for NASA to base its plans on the hope that SpaceX will deliver on its PR claims.  But there is no need to rely on hope.  If NASA can identify its space-launch needs, then it can contract with SpaceX or other credible companies to satisfy those needs.  How does it not make sense for that option to at least be considered?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/29/2018 02:57 pm
The ISS doesn't meet your criteria for manned human spaceflight minimum crew size. And before you build a 100+ person base, you would want multiple site survey teams characterizing many sites to determine the suitable location.

I absolutely positively do not want that.  You want that.  I want a rocket that can actually support a moon base before we start launching missions to support a moon base.

Quote
The hardware mass is what I was referring to.  The ISS life support modules alone weigh as much as 4-8 lunar payloads for the SLS block 1b.

40 mT to TLI translates to at least 13 mT on the surface given the following conservative lander specs:

lander dry mass: 4,000 kg
lander fuel: 23,000 kg
lander fuel fraction: 85%
lander isp: 330
payload 13,000 kg
delta v with max payload: 2700-2800 m/s

total launch mass: 40,000 kg[/quote]


The SLS Block 1B doesn't do 40 to TLI, it does 36, you appear to have no fuel reserve and the lander you are talking about doesn't exist.

However take the step back from these high level numbers and consider just one detail: your numbers aren't accounting for any of the return hardware.  That means that the crew system needs to developed separately which means you are asking people to go to the moon on an untested system to use hardware that was launched a year before.  All so that you can get a measly 11 tons to surface and get above that arbitrary 10 ton number.

This isn't some small segue or a change of topic.  Now you have to develop an entirely new system.  So it's three systems, each of them needing to do their jobs really well, just to replicate what others want to do with one system.  That's what starts happening when you have razor thin margins.  You have some fringe problem and you need to develop a tool just for that problem and nothing else and now your overhead has gone up.  That's always going to happen from time to time on any system that happens to humans.  But when it starts happening at the level of major pieces of hardware, you need to take a step back and look at the entire design.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 06/29/2018 03:32 pm
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

You can do any proposed SLS goal using Vulcan and ACES instead. Including putting a 20 ton station module around the Moon and a lunar lander. SLS is a bad design even in a world without BFR and SpaceX. BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/29/2018 03:49 pm
...

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.

Once BFR is built, flying, and certified -- at zero cost to the taxpayers -- you'll no doubt find another strange rationale to oppose cancelling the POR. 

SLS should stand on its merit, or fail.  Merit must include value for the tax dollars spent and timely delivery of the procured vehicle.

Then you clearly don't understand my argument if you think once BFR is flying and certified I would find new reasons for SLS/Orion. 

The way you slant your argument makes it impossible for any government run program to exist in your mind, which is why you call for canceling literally all of them (with a few exceptions). Its the same arguments I hear opponents to California Highspeed Rail stating over and over and over.   

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Khadgars on 06/29/2018 03:52 pm
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

You can do any proposed SLS goal using Vulcan and ACES instead. Including putting a 20 ton station module around the Moon and a lunar lander. SLS is a bad design even in a world without BFR and SpaceX. BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.

I have yet to see any meaningful proposal from ULA or SpaceX for such a plan.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 04:06 pm
The SLS Block 1B doesn't do 40 to TLI, it does 36, you appear to have no fuel reserve and the lander you are talking about doesn't exist.

This is NASA's chart:

(https://i.imgur.com/5VXhb5F.png)

Looks like a range of 38-42 mT (they use the symbol t). As far as fuel reserve, whether it is 12 mT to 13 mT makes very little difference. The life support system on the ISS doesn't exceed either unless you count about 1,000 cubic meters of living space or 200 kw of solar arrays as life support. But that is powering stuff that isn't needed for basic habitation: deep freezers, water heaters, cooling/lighting/ventilation for ~1000 cubic meters, racks and racks of experiment modules, cat video bandwidth, etc., etc., etc. And ISS is absolutely palacial. If you haven't seen a more or less full walkthrough video yet, you should have a go:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes

It is certainly a testament to the types of things we could accomplish if the HSF budget was dedicated to a singular purpose for a number of years.

Quote
This isn't some small segue or a change of topic.  Now you have to develop an entirely new system.  So it's three systems, each of them needing to do their jobs really well

If you are talking about BFS, you could equally divide that into 3 seperate systems - An unpressurized cargo lander, a crew vehicle, a booster. You could likewise divide SLS + Orion + Lander into 5 systems: Booster + Core Stage + Upper Stage + Orion + Lander Descent Stage + Lander Ascent Stage.And you can divide ISS logistics into 11 U.S. systems: Atlas V core stage, Atlas V boosters, Centaur, CST-100, Falcon 9 core stage, Falcon 9 upper stage, Dragon, Dream chaser, Cygnus, Antares 230 liquid stage, Antares 230 solid stage.

Cost vs system number isn't a linear relationship. As far as the cost of the additional piece, 82% of the cost of Apollo was the launch vehicle and the crew vehicle. Adding a lander cost an additional 21%. The cost of combining the functions of lander and the crew vehicle required the Nova rocket, which would have likely increased the cost of the 2 systems by at least 20% if not more.

You can also see the inefficiency of a single purpose system in the IMLEO numbers. For BFS to send one person to the moon requires a fully fueled vehicle in LEO or an IMLEO of ~1200 mT. Apollo did the same task on a little over 100 mT. For certain tasks, you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) would want a smaller vehicle (talking about the lander piece) anyway.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/29/2018 04:41 pm
...
You can also see the inefficiency of a single purpose system in the IMLEO numbers. For BFS to send one person to the moon requires a fully fueled vehicle in LEO or an IMLEO of ~1200 mT. Apollo did the same task on a little over 100 mT. For certain tasks, you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) would want a smaller vehicle (talking about the lander piece) anyway.

IMLEO is irrelevant. What matters is cost, specifically the cost of all that hardware getting thrown away on every mission. The cost of getting 1200 tonnes to LEO with current rockets is about the same as the cost of the LEM and CSM hardware that Apollo threw away on every mission. (Plus you are ignoring that BFR is some 20x as capable in terms of landed and returned payload).

Managing costs requires efficiently refueling and reusing all the vehicles. This could be done with current small vehicles or future large ones or anything in between. SLS/Orion is not efficient to reuse at any point, either in space or after return to Earth. LOP-G could be used to base a reusable lander, which would be great. But I have not seen a credible plan for that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 04:51 pm
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.

I look forward to it flying in the next month or so.

(https://i.imgur.com/605WNug.png)

Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/29/2018 05:00 pm

Cost vs system number isn't a linear relationship. As far as the cost of the additional piece, 82% of the cost of Apollo was the launch vehicle and the crew vehicle. Adding a lander cost an additional 21%. The cost of combining the functions of lander and the crew vehicle required the Nova rocket, which would have likely increased the cost of the 2 systems by at least 20% if not more.

You can also see the inefficiency of a single purpose system in the IMLEO numbers. For BFS to send one person to the moon requires a fully fueled vehicle in LEO or an IMLEO of ~1200 mT. Apollo did the same task on a little over 100 mT. For certain tasks, you(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you) would want a smaller vehicle (talking about the lander piece) anyway.

You are also ignoring technology. Apollo could not land a single person on the moon. Automated docking had not been developed yet so you needed a crew of at least 2 and possibly 3 to fly the thing. BFR could do the whole mission without crew. Even the lunar lander was not designed to work without crew as the plan was to send it  to the moon and use a crew to land it by remote control for a lunar base.While for certain tasks you might want a smaller vehicles smaller vehicles already exist or soon will exist. FH for instance can lift almost as much as SLS block 1.

Apollo was limited into lifting 100MT at once due to boil off and inability to transfer propellants. BFR won't likely have that problem. BFR  gives full reuse which can lead to cost savings. Apollo and SLS are expenable single use systems. A cargo BFR when not doing an human space flight mission could earn income by doing commercial and other missions while NASA must bear the FULL cost for SLS.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 06/29/2018 05:12 pm
Quote
New Glenn

Still on paper.

Quote
BFR

Same as NG but farther along with actual components.
These are the kind of statements that are so wrong, making them discredits everything else in your post.

The last statement is self contradictory. Rephrasing it says "still on paper, but not on paper"

Other things wrong with your statements:
-Both rockets have existing major components on test stands today (engines)
-New Glenn is the further along rocket, it has less to prove, its factory is built, it has a full scale engine in test, its upper stage engine is flying today in a non-vacuum variant, and its launch pad is fully under construction.
-BFR is just starting to build the factory, though manufacturing equipment for the first prototype exists and should fly first, first flight is farther from operational than it is for NG due to the different development plan.

Look, I acknowledge that there are commercial rockets coming down the pike that could challenge SLS. I hope they succeed and when they do SLS can be retired or whatever. The problem is that the future is uncertain. Plans can change. Look how quickly SpaceX changed their plans for Red Dragon. My argument is that until a better option is truly available SLS should continue development.
I actually agree to some extent, and am not ready to actively call for cancellation of the SLS yet, but your awareness of how far along the other options are seems to be lacking. How you define "truly available" is important and should be discussed.

For example:
Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that. 
The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system. After that, BFR will be an existing and obviously better path forward. NASA could step in and say "we'll pay you to keep building this" though an even better option would be to instead just divert funds to payloads so that NASA actually can do something with BFR other than looking silly saying "oh wait... you built that, give us some years to build something as a payload."

I look forward to it flying in the next month or so.
Ship testing and "start flying" aren't actually the same thing. Current plans have start flying still within the "ship testing" section of that plan, though even if it amounts to a few months of delays, those delays on a 2 year old schedule on a program of this size is less of a delay than I expected. Especially since that clearly is the "no margin" version of the schedule.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/29/2018 05:18 pm
Discussion solely focusing on the BFR schedule is probably off topic - unless we're comparing it to the SLS schedule, which really does SLS no favors...
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2018 05:27 pm
...

Once BFR is built, flying and certified can you start calling for SLS/Orion cancellation, but until then its unreasonable to think NASA would cancel is POR prior to that.

Justifying the existence of a $30-40B development program, simply based on the fact that no one else has built the equivalent for free is a strange argument.

Once BFR is built, flying, and certified -- at zero cost to the taxpayers -- you'll no doubt find another strange rationale to oppose cancelling the POR. 

SLS should stand on its merit, or fail.  Merit must include value for the tax dollars spent and timely delivery of the procured vehicle.

Then you clearly don't understand my argument if you think once BFR is flying and certified I would find new reasons for SLS/Orion. 

The way you slant your argument makes it impossible for any government run program to exist in your mind, which is why you call for canceling literally all of them (with a few exceptions). Its the same arguments I hear opponents to California Highspeed Rail stating over and over and over.

There should no longer be any government run launch vehicle program. None, zip, zilch, nada.

The USG has proven incapable of building a modern, cost-effective launch vehicle.
Saturn V -- built in 1960s, retired in 1973, with significant state-of-the-art improvements ready to be built, but never built
STS, designed and built in 1970s -- retired after failure to achieve primary goal of reducing cost to orbit -- significant improvements not made, even after crew loss and falling far short of technological goals
Ares I, failed development program of low-tech, high risk crewed rocket
Ares V, never got started because cost was astronomically high and unsupportable even if the vehicle was given to NASA per Augustine Commission
SLS/Orion, 1970's technology rocket that NASA and industry partners are struggling to build... long past due date, incredibly expensive for a once-per-year launcher, and does nothing to advance rocketry (what USG programs are supposed to do)

Bottom Line: The USG has not built a successful launch system for 40 years.

There is absolutely sufficient and irrefutable evidence to show that the USG no longer has the capability to build a launch vehicle that advances the state-of-the-art in rocketry, nor does it have the ability to build a system that we can afford to use for any substantial exploration program.


You are correct.  I do not believe there is any justification for any government-run launch system to exist.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/29/2018 05:58 pm
Then you clearly don't understand my argument if you think once BFR is flying and certified I would find new reasons for SLS/Orion. 

While it might seem a bit unfair to ask you to answer for the deficiencies in unspecified arguments you stand accused of making at some point in the future, you should have thought of that before you became an enemy of the people, you counterrevolutionary scum.

On a tangential note, NASA does have an annoying habit of shifting the rationale for a big booster.  While it does make sense to shift plans in development to adjust to new information, they dont appear to actually be adjusting to anything.  So this does contribute rather heavily to the perception in some quarters that it's a system in search of a justification.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 06:09 pm

The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system.

You don't know what testing will prove. Their last upper stage has a 1/28 failure rate, which would relegate this to a non-human lander, non-human launcher. And that took the better part of a decade to gather that information. Between landing failures, launch failures, flight failures: a total of approaching a dozen falcon 9 first stages have prematurely been destroyed. If BFS goes anything like that and then BFR after that....

Ship testing and "start flying" aren't actually the same thing. Current plans have start flying still within the "ship testing" section of that plan, though even if it amounts to a few months of delays, those delays on a 2 year old schedule on a program of this size is less of a delay than I expected. Especially since that clearly is the "no margin" version of the schedule.

Well, I look forward to the testing of the ship within the next month then...whatever "testing" actually means. I assumed that the testing right before orbital testing would be flight testing, but that may not be the case. Still it needs to be assembled on the ground by next month to meet schedule and not miss the 2022 mars launch window which pushes that out to middle of the next decade.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/29/2018 06:45 pm

The BFS portion of BFR will be flying next year based on current schedules. It sounds like you are saying to wait until the whole system is developed. The BFS testing should quickly prove out the high risk portions of the overall system.

You don't know what testing will prove. Their last upper stage has a 1/28 failure rate, which would relegate this to a non-human lander, non-human launcher. And that took the better part of a decade to gather that information.

By that metric no Shuttle would have flown after Challenger, and SLS should have AT LEAST 30 successful flights before launching crew. Which I imagine would take the better part of two decades to show.

Quote
Between landing failures, launch failures, flight failures: a total of approaching a dozen falcon 9 first stages have prematurely been destroyed. If BFS goes anything like that and then BFR after that....

Development testing failures hardly indicate poor operational reliability.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 06:55 pm

Development testing failures hardly indicate poor operational reliability.

The real question is how many BFRs/BFSs can they build a year. You likely can't lose ~10 of them to running out of ignition fluid, running out of hydraulic fluid, legs not latching, tanks coming loose, tanks bursting, guidance problems or all the myriad causes of Falcon 9 first stage failures without pushing out operations many many years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2018 07:01 pm
Easier if you never fly... then you have a record that is beyond reproach.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 06/29/2018 07:03 pm

Development testing failures hardly indicate poor operational reliability.

The real question is how many BFRs/BFSs can they build a year. You likely can't lose ~10 of them to running out of ignition fluid, running out of hydraulic fluid, legs not latching, tanks coming loose, tanks bursting, guidance problems or all the myriad causes of Falcon 9 first stage failures without pushing out operations many many years.

Thus the incremental flight testing, all the way from just firing the engines on the pad and shutting them down, to orbital velocity entry tests, in small steps. Most things that would cause a failure on the next flight should be detectable on a previous flight and followup inspection, and fixed before they cause a catastrophic failure.

This costs more than testing on parts that would be expended anyway like F9 boosters, but less than 100% component and vehicle level ground testing like SLS/Orion, commercial crew vehicles, and pretty much all other spacecraft.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 07:18 pm
Easier if you never fly... then you have a record that is beyond reproach.

People like you won't let them fly. X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it. Ares 1 has a test launch, cancel it. SLS has 5/10 booster segements complete, the upper stage complete, and the core stage half way through construction...cancel it. Ares V doesn't even start development, blame NASA for the failure in development and then use that as an excuse to cancel the next program.

If you are concerned about the annual cost, you should advocate reducing the budget, which would be an easier lift politically. But the cancel the SLS crowd can't even get that done, so the chances of anything beyond that are even less likely.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/29/2018 07:26 pm
People like you won't let them fly.

Wont let in what way?  Wont let it be funded for a couple dozen billion dollars?  Wont let it have a spot on the launch pad?  Wont let it have a cargo?  In what way has the schedule of SLS been delayed by a single day by people like him?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 07:32 pm
People like you won't let them fly.

Wont let in what way?  Wont let it be funded for a couple dozen billion dollars?  Wont let it have a spot on the launch pad?  Wont let it have a cargo?  In what way has the schedule of SLS been delayed by a single day by people like him?

Somebody always comes up with some reason why this stuff can't be completed. It isn't his fault, it is people with his attitude's fault that actually have some say in the matter. There is a reason we haven't soft landed on the moon since 1972. There is a reason why people haven't left LEO since 1972.

edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months. The number spent on BEO HSF is less than 1/10th that. It isn't because of the technical ability of NASA to manage or operate a program. Look at ISS, Shuttle, Hubble, Curiosity, New Horizons or any of the other programs. It is simply a matter that it was not a budget priority. You can't spend 1/10th the money on something 10x as difficult. BEO finally gets equal footing budget wise with LEO after half a century of LEO getting the entire thing and people lose it over "cost".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/29/2018 08:18 pm
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.

No, the reason why is because most people dont want to pay one billion dollars for flags and footprints, let alone 40 billion dollars.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/29/2018 08:30 pm
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.

No, the reason why is because most people dont want to pay one billion dollars for flags and footprints, let alone 40 billion dollars.

I'm pretty sure we already went through this. The incremental cost in mass of extended crew stays is not that great. For instance, a single block 1B lands the equivalent of 2-3 fully loaded Cygnus cargo modules on the moon which supplies the station of 6 for about 4-6 months as they get resupplied roughly every 2 months. You could supply a base indefinitely on 2 per year perhaps with a crew rotation every 2 years (you can likely do longer than the 438 days demonstrated for zero-g in 1/6 g). A suit of weights is possible to simulate closer to 1g which wouldn't work in microgravity.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: dlapine on 06/29/2018 08:33 pm
People like you won't let them fly.

Wont let in what way?  Wont let it be funded for a couple dozen billion dollars?  Wont let it have a spot on the launch pad?  Wont let it have a cargo?  In what way has the schedule of SLS been delayed by a single day by people like him?

Somebody always comes up with some reason why this stuff can't be completed. It isn't his fault, it is people with his attitude's fault that actually have some say in the matter. There is a reason we haven't soft landed on the moon since 1972. There is a reason why people haven't left LEO since 1972.

Um, 4+ years overdue and $10B over budget might be considered a lot more than just some reason.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 06/29/2018 09:34 pm
I'm pretty sure we already went through this. The incremental cost in mass of extended crew stays is not that great.

You can't just say something, get disagreement then say "we've been over this" to act like it's settled.  What we have been over is an amount that YOU consider perfectly acceptable and several of us think is too expensive.


For instance, a single block 1B lands the equivalent of 2-3 fully loaded Cygnus cargo modules on the moon

Yes, and if ALL we cared about was having people breathing and eating on the moon, mission accomplished, you dont even need ISRU.  Well, assuming that first you actually send them somewhere to live.  I dont consider that money well spent.  If we are going to spend billions going there then they should be doing something worth billions of dollars.  That means sending them a base which means developing expensive mass optimized equipment and more launches until it's pretty easy to see why they thought this program would need to last all the way into block 2 before they'd start a moon mission.

Antares didn't build the ISS.  Antares is about equivalent to the rocket the Chinese used to build Tiangong.  The Chinese built Tiangong.  So if we extend this logic, with SLS we could have Tiangong on the moon.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/29/2018 10:59 pm
Easier if you never fly... then you have a record that is beyond reproach.

People like you won't let them fly. X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it. Ares 1 has a test launch, cancel it. SLS has 5/10 booster segements complete, the upper stage complete, and the core stage half way through construction...cancel it. Ares V doesn't even start development, blame NASA for the failure in development and then use that as an excuse to cancel the next program.

If you are concerned about the annual cost, you should advocate reducing the budget, which would be an easier lift politically. But the cancel the SLS crowd can't even get that done, so the chances of anything beyond that are even less likely.

People like me don't have a say at all. 
If we did, NASA would be out of the launch business in a New York minute.

Big defense contractors are calling the shots (via their wholly-owned congresspeople).  NASA is their tool.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Negan on 06/29/2018 11:03 pm
You can do any proposed SLS goal using Vulcan and ACES instead. Including putting a 20 ton station module around the Moon and a lunar lander. SLS is a bad design even in a world without BFR and SpaceX. BFR will only make this fact explicitly manifest in a way that hopefully cannot be ignored anymore, but it is true long before BFR flies.

Wouldn't Boeing have a say in whether ACES is actually developed, and if so, as the main contractor for SLS why would they?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/30/2018 02:20 am
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.

NASA's Ivan Bekey told congress that X-33 doesn't work, and congress cancelled it.

Quote
Ares 1 has a test launch, cancel it.

Ares-1X has very little to do with Ares-1, this has been discussed ad infiniti in the past. Ares 1 is a disaster due to the bad decisions made by then NASA administrator Mike Griffin, its technical difficulty/cost overrun/schedule delay is the reason for cancellation.

Quote
Ares V doesn't even start development

Oh it started but also a disaster, partially (or mainly?) due to Ares 1. 5.5 segment SRB anyone? The whole Constellation is a circus, after reading the Ares I section and old threads of this section, anyone who still think NASA should be in charge of developing LV is <words left to the reader>.

Quote
SLS has 5/10 booster segements complete, the upper stage complete, and the core stage half way through construction...cancel it.

That's just for Block 1 SLS, which is barely better than FH, the difference is FH is already flying and costed zero dollar to taxpayer.

Quote
, blame NASA for the failure in development and then use that as an excuse to cancel the next program.

It's pretty clear that NASA and congress is responsible for all of the cancellations you mentioned, plus many more (NLS, ALS, SLI, the alphabetic soup goes on)


Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/30/2018 02:33 am
edit: And that reason is likely because we spent approaching $400 billion on LEO spaceflight. It is going up by $1 billion every few months.

<snip>

You can't spend 1/10th the money on something 10x as difficult.

Well if it's 10x as difficult, you'll need $4 trillion dollars, and $1 billion every week to do BLEO.

Quote
There is a reason why people haven't left LEO since 1972.

The reason is doing BLEO in old space ways is too expensive, it's not affordable given NASA's budget, you just proved it. Business as usual is not going to work with BLEO given the budget reality.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/30/2018 02:52 am
Which is an awesome feature, not a limitation!

I totally agree that FH's reusability is an awesome feature. All I am saying is that reusability means it has a smaller LEO (and more importantly TLI & TMI) payload capacity.

Quote
Considering Musk already presented the expendable price of FH, it's apparent that SpaceX has no issue expending one if paid to. We also know that expending a FH adds nothing to the complexity of the launch.

Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.

FH definitely has a role to play with LOP-G but I don't think it can launch every payload that would be needed.

The reason I know you are wrong is because we literally did this exact song and dance before 10 years ago. Denial of the facts, particularly the budgetary, timeline, and engineering facts of a program like this does not save the program.

Couple of key differences between 10 years ago and today.

1. By this time during President Obama's first term CxP had already been canceled. The signs that the Obama administration was going to cancel CxP were apparent all the way back in 2007 when his campaign advocated canceling CxP and diverting the money to pre-K.

The current administration on the other hand has made no moves to cancel SLS/Orion. Obviously there are people advising the administration on space policy who are not fans of SLS and the admin has been pushing more of a commercial space angle (which is a good thing in my view) but there has been nothing like we saw in 2009/2010.

2. As you mentioned in your post hardware is actually coming down the line. NASA has the design locked down, engines are ready, core stage is being constructed, the upper stage is nearly complete, SRBs are nearly ready and so on. CxP didn't even come close to having this amount of hardware ready to fly.

Quote
I can almost certainly guarantee you there are people in Congress with these plans in mind already.


There will always be people in Congress who have plans to shift money from one congressional district to another.

The last statement is self contradictory. Rephrasing it says "still on paper, but not on paper"

I admit I used incorrect phrasing there. I meant to say that BFR had some components being tested but a lot was still on the drawing board.

Quote
-Both rockets have existing major components on test stands today (engines)
-New Glenn is the further along rocket, it has less to prove, its factory is built, it has a full scale engine in test, its upper stage engine is flying today in a non-vacuum variant, and its launch pad is fully under construction.
-BFR is just starting to build the factory, though manufacturing equipment for the first prototype exists and should fly first, first flight is farther from operational than it is for NG due to the different development plan.

I'll admit again that I was incorrect in characterizing NG as totally being a "paper rocket". Still, the rocket as a whole is in the early-mid stages of development and (at least the two stage version) wouldn't come close to matching FH.

Quote
How you define "truly available" is important and should be discussed.

I would define truly available as having launched. Thus FH is "truly available" in my mind.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 03:45 am
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.

NASA's Ivan Bekey told congress that X-33 doesn't work, and congress cancelled it.


-
Quote
I understand that NASA and Lockheed Martin are proposing to fly the vehicle in about a year, but with an Aluminum fuel tank. I think to do so would be a big mistake for 3 reasons:
</snip>
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421

Like I said, NASA isn't allowed to fly...because reasons. It wasn't that it didn't work. That is a gross mis-characterization of the facts. Even if it works, if it doesn't include someone's pet material science project, it must be scrapped. And so instead of testing a portion of the proposed technologies, none of them get tested. And the results of this testimony, did nothing to silence the critics of SSTO, which is Ivan Bekey's reason #2 for not even trying to flight test with the aluminum tanks. Quite the opposite.

Bringing up the X-33 does nothing to prove that NASA isn't able to develop LVs, which is what was done up thread. It only serves as a cautionary tale that it's history is full of premature cancellations on thin rationale way too close to flight (to the point it would be better to quit testing and just fly the thing and see what happens which would be a better sendoff then rotting in a hangar.).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 06/30/2018 03:49 am
X-33 is essentially complete, cancel it.

NASA's Ivan Bekey told congress that X-33 doesn't work, and congress cancelled it.


-
Quote
I understand that NASA and Lockheed Martin are proposing to fly the vehicle in about a year, but with an Aluminum fuel tank. I think to do so would be a big mistake for 3 reasons:
</snip>
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=1421

Like I said, NASA isn't allowed to fly...because reasons. It wasn't that it didn't work. That is a gross mis-characterization of the facts.

Ivan Bekey was

Quote
quite familiar with advanced space transportation, having spent 19 years at NASA Headquarters from 1978 to 1997, including 6 years as Director of Advanced Programs in the Office of Space Flight in which I was directly responsible for the identification, definition, and advocacy of advanced Earth-to-space and in-space transportation, and other positions directing Advanced Concepts which identified a broad range of far-reaching technologies for space transportation.

The reasons came from a NASA guy, how is this not caused by NASA?

Also if you read old X-33 threads, pretty much everyone here supported it and are disappointed it's cancelled. The only ones who didn't miss it are those in the industry (Jim for example), so it's gross mis-characterization to say "we (as in space enthusiasts) won't let them fly".
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Negan on 06/30/2018 04:15 am
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them?

IMO the likelihood of NASA waiting until FH production is scrapped to commit to FH is very low. On the other hand I would be absolutely ecstatic if BFR progress was so fast that this would be an actual issue.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 04:28 am
Also if you read old X-33 threads, pretty much everyone here supported it and are disappointed it's cancelled. The only ones who didn't miss it are those in the industry (Jim for example), so it's gross mis-characterization to say "we (as in space enthusiasts) won't let them fly".

Space enthusiasts wouldn't constantly moan about the massive unaffordable costs of .05% of the the federal budget dedicated to X spaceflight project and how it was going to bankrupt the country (yes, this came up a few pages back). Partisans of one space company or another might do that, but general space flight enthusiasts wouldn't.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 06/30/2018 04:32 am
Couple of key differences between 10 years ago and today.

1. By this time during President Obama's first term CxP had already been canceled. The signs that the Obama administration was going to cancel CxP were apparent all the way back in 2007 when his campaign advocated canceling CxP and diverting the money to pre-K.

You made a factually incorrect statement. Obama did not advocate cancelling the Constellation program in 2007.

And I'm sure you don't want people dragging out Trump's promises about NASA from the campaign trail to justify that he doesn't care about space. Right? Politicians say lots of things, which is why it only matters what they do. Let's keep the bar high here...

Quote
The current administration on the other hand has made no moves to cancel SLS/Orion.

Let's remember some facts:

Obama:

Charles Bolden confirmed as NASA Administrator 178 days in.

Within 275 days of taking office, Obama had created the Augustine Commission and they had already delivered their report. You should read it, because it pretty much identifies why the Constellation program was unlikely to stick around long. You can find the report here at NASA (https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf).

Trump:

Jim Bridenstine NOMINATED by Trump to be NASA Administrator 224 in.

315 days in, Trump signs Space Policy Directive 1, which was the same as the existing national space policy guidelines released in 2010 by President Obama. The paragraph Trump changed eliminated any specific date goals. In other words, there are no specific goals for NASA exploration now.

So while it's true that Trump has made no attempts to change the SLS or Orion programs, he also has not been actively doing anything to ensure their long-term survival. Remember, policy statements are not budgets, and they are also not evidence of "political capital", which is often required to get what President's want.

Quote
Obviously there are people advising the administration on space policy who are not fans of SLS and the admin has been pushing more of a commercial space angle (which is a good thing in my view) but there has been nothing like we saw in 2009/2010.

Like it or not, but Obama took quick and decisive action concerning NASA after he became President, and Congress agreed with a large part of what he asked for. In fact all he lost was development programs, which were replaced with the SLS and Orion. And lots of Republican's from NASA-heavy states voted in favor of the changes.

In comparison Trump has done little to justify the future of the SLS and Orion. Remember they are only funded for development, not operational use. No long-term programs have been fully funded by Congress that require the SLS and Orion, so Trump is not yet their savior...  ;)

Quote
2. As you mentioned in your post hardware is actually coming down the line. NASA has the design locked down, engines are ready, core stage is being constructed, the upper stage is nearly complete, SRBs are nearly ready and so on. CxP didn't even come close to having this amount of hardware ready to fly.

There is no such thing as a "design lockdown" when you haven't flown. Doesn't matter who. And the SLS is still over 2 years away from flying as of today, and that's only IF there are no more schedule slips - which is highly unlikely considering past history.

And again, this applies to all launchers, not just the SLS.

Regardless though, keep remembering that there is "competition" between the SLS and any other launcher. Congress wanted the SLS built, and they don't care about cost or schedule, and so far they have not cared that there is nothing for it officially to do when it does become operational.

Congress controls the fate of the SLS, not the President. And we've all seen how quickly Congress can change their minds, especially after elections. Just sayin'....
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/30/2018 04:36 am
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.

If broken into 2 flights with an upper stage doing the pushing it could easily do it. Docking has been invented you know. Also the number of FH that will be stockpiled is going to depend on the contracts for it(i.e. If there were a contract for it Space X would be sure to have enough FH on hand to deliver it and BFR could take over lifting the upper stage(and if unmanned and built for it an Orion Capsule). SLS robs commercial of potential payloads.

Quote
FH definitely has a role to play with LOP-G but I don't think it can launch every payload that would be needed.

Very little role as the thing won't be permanently maned(how much resupply does it need?) and the were even plans to use SLS to move cargo to the station.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 04:45 am
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.

SLS robs commercial of potential payloads.


This is like saying that Ford robs Uber of paying customers because they sell vehicles directly. Or is it Uber robbing Ford of car sales. The reality is there is no entitlement for either of them. Last I checked, Boeing/Aerojet Rocketdyne/Orbital were all commercial companies. Multiple study groups evaluated Falcon derived, EELV derived, Shuttle-derived vehicles. The Admininstrator of NASA at the time chose a EELV-derived/Shuttle-derived hybrid approach, possibly due to the Augustine commissions proposal of an Ares V Lite vehicle more directly derived from Shuttle. SpaceX didn't win the contract, and so we have to call mulligan until the preferred contractor gets selected. The reality is that not every NASA contract or even launch contract is going to go to SpaceX and so you are all working for something that will never happen.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/30/2018 04:54 am
Obviously FH expendable would cost less than SLS but given the current plan of stockpiling boosters till BFR comes online would SpaceX be willing to expend a large amount of them? Even in expendable mode FH couldn't launch Orion or anything above 20 mt to TLI.

SLS robs commercial of potential payloads.


This is like saying that Ford robs Uber of paying customers because they sell vehicles directly. Or is it Uber robbing Ford of car sales. The reality is there is no entitlement for either of them. Last I checked, Boeing/Aerojet Rocketdyne/Orbital were all commercial companies.

Here is the problem in a nutshell.  SLS is a government owned system and it can only be improved via the will of Congress through NASA. Rockets like Vulcan, Falcon, Antares can be improved via private investments and via government investments from the military and NASA this give a potential for vast improvements in economics. They also compete for payloads which helps control prices. More launches make things like reuse and development make more sense. Fewer launches mean the companies have less reason to improve their systems(less work to do).
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Steven Pietrobon on 06/30/2018 08:02 am
The SLS Block 1B doesn't do 40 to TLI, it does 36, you appear to have no fuel reserve and the lander you are talking about doesn't exist.

According to Boeing (AIAA Space 2013) Block IB does 39.1 t to TLI.

By the way, NASA is correct to use t for 1000 kg as that is the SI definition. As we all know, mT or millitesla doesn't make sense as a unit for mass. :-)
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 06/30/2018 08:50 am
Space enthusiasts wouldn't constantly moan about the massive unaffordable costs of .05% of the the federal budget dedicated to X spaceflight project and how it was going to bankrupt the country (yes, this came up a few pages back).

Space enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 06/30/2018 08:55 am


Space enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.
[/quote]


Yes.  the current space industrial complex has produced vehicles that are to expensive for the resources that the country will likely allocate to use them to accomplish anything.  ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 06/30/2018 09:14 am
ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either

Indeed, and I think the reverse is also true, if costs decrease, we will ultimately do both (and probably other inner solar system bodies as well, such as Martian moon and asteroids). It is kind of a false dichotomy..
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 06/30/2018 09:28 am
yes.  launch cost are really a substantial (but not the total) part of what in the rest of the world is called "transportation cost" .  and the lower that gets the more likely it is the more places one goes.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 06/30/2018 12:35 pm

Quote
Space enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.


Yes.  the current space industrial complex has produced vehicles that are to expensive for the resources that the country will likely allocate to use them to accomplish anything.  ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either

This is exactly the point.  Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile.  Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can?  For $4B per year...

SLS/Orion should be flat out cancelled because they are less than worthless to this Nation.  If the Nation is interested in actually doing something in space, a new approach needs to be found.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: spacenut on 06/30/2018 12:36 pm
What people who are against SLS have been advocating is using distributed launches using existing launch vehicles.  The over $1 billion cost per SLS launch can be used to launch about 4 Falcon Heavies with payloads, or 4-6 Vulcan ACES with payloads, or 4-6 New Glenn's with payloads, and actually get something going for the moon or Mars.  Costs would gradually come down with reusable rockets or partly reusable rockets, more launches gives NASA more discounts.  Then there would be bidding going on between the three. 

Money saved from SLS could build fuel depots, an LL1 or LL2 permanently manned deep space station.  Reusable lunar landers, etc.  At least a more robust lunar architecture.  Once in place, and using international partners, Mars could be done the same way. 

One of the problems with SLS, is that large solids are expensive and not reusable.  Also the liquid engines are also expensive and unless I am mistaken, do not use any 3D printed parts. 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: TripleSeven on 06/30/2018 01:08 pm
there are two hard limits in space policy today

the first is the one I mentioned earlier.  with the cost of the vehicles NASA is building or forced to build or whatever :) there is no real chance to accomplish anything significant in human spaceflight because there is no political support to spend enough money to make that infrastructure work.  this infrastructure will never get cheaper...it will always get more and more expensive as time goes on.

the second is equally true.  few if any of the "startups" that are in some way directly related to human spaceflight, will make enough money with the product that they are offering, at least at the start; to be successful==or even to get to market. 

SpaceX would have "most likely" not been successful without the money that they got from the Commercial cargo...its unclear anyone in the US would be building human spaceflight vehicles without commercial crew.  Bigelow doesnt seem to have any non government customers (I know that is up for debate) in sufficient numbers to launch one of their larger inflatables...I am curious if Axiom thinks that they can get to orbit without some sort of federal anchor effort

this is precisely why the government in the 1930's anchored commercial aviation with the airmail and is the story of geosynch communications satellites as well

the good news is that commercial efforts do get cheaper...and 1) something useful could be done "now" on a reasonable amount of dollars if the money from SLS and Orion were spent on that "something" and 2) the cost of doing something will get cheaper as commercial efforts get more commercial customers.

BUT the bad news is that federal space policy doesnt care.  the main interest there is not doing something in space; it is supporting space infrastructure on the earth; and has been that way since Apollo ended.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 03:42 pm

Quote
Space enthusiasts should constantly moan about the costs. Not because it would bankrupt the country in general, but because it bankrupts the spaceflight industry. There is only a certain amount of $ billions that actually go towards spaceflight every year, relatively constant since the end of Apollo when adjusted for inflation, and unless a miracle happens this aint going to change anytime soon. Unless you are content with flying a handful of astronauts in small tin cans for countless billions (and space enthusiasts should not be), the only way forward is increased cost efficiency.


Yes.  the current space industrial complex has produced vehicles that are to expensive for the resources that the country will likely allocate to use them to accomplish anything.  ie the debate over the Moon or Mars is useless there is not enough money given the choice of vehicles...to do either

This is exactly the point.  Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile.  Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can?  For $4B per year...

This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....

See what I did there? If we really want to pursue the cheapest thing that counts as spaceflight, it should be suborbital. Costs on seats are 100x lower. Of course, direct comparisons like that are super unfair because of the rocket equation.

suborbital - 3- 4 km/s
LEO - 9-10 km/s
lunar orbit - 13-14 km/s
lunar surface -  18-19 km/s

Comparing LEO costs vs suborbital is not a relevant comparison. Neither is lunar orbit vs LEO. But the only non-relevant comparisons that are made are the ones that make commercial crew and one particular contractor look good.

Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about? This repeat and rewash of the same rote task over and over again is just as pointless as using ISS's budget to fly astronauts to sub-orbital space 3 times a day.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Endeavour_01 on 06/30/2018 03:47 pm
You made a factually incorrect statement. Obama did not advocate cancelling the Constellation program in 2007

Actually he did, although he couched it in terms of "delaying" rather than out and out canceling. My point was that you could see CxP's demise coming from a mile away in those days.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2007/11/20/obama-cut-constellation-to-pay-for-education/

Quote
The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years,”

 
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/30/2018 05:57 pm


This is exactly the point.  Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile.  Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can?  For $4B per year...

Quote
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable of ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....

The ISS is far more capable of long term spaceflight and science than Orion ever will be.

Quote
See what I did there? If we really want to pursue the cheapest thing that counts as spaceflight, it should be suborbital. Costs on seats ar
e 100x lower. Of course, direct comparisons like that are super unfair because of the rocket equation.

suborbital - 3- 4 km/s
LEO - 9-10 km/s
lunar orbit - 13-14 km/s
lunar surface -  18-19 km/s

The problem with suborbital is the short duration of the zero g otherwise yes it is cheaper and NASA actually can afford to do BOTH suborbital and orbital research in LEO without trashing the ISS or drastically cutting. Not so much for SLS. Both suborbital and the ISS are capable of many hours worth of experment time a year not so much SLS/Orion.

Quote
Comparing LEO costs vs suborbital is not a relevant comparison. Neither is lunar orbit vs LEO. But the only non-relevant comparisons that are made are the ones that make commercial crew and one particular contractor look good.

One major reason why LEO costs are so much cheaper is because those rockets often have other uses and users which allows economies of scale to be generated. SLS not so much.

Quote
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about? This repeat and rewash of the same rote task over and over again is just as pointless as using ISS's budget to fly astronauts to sub-orbital space 3 times a day.

I like Space X, but if a lunar trip is to be funded it should come out of SLS's budget not the ISS. Actually doing something practical in space is boring and in a good way.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 06/30/2018 06:01 pm
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.

Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.

So don't hold your breadth if you are expecting SLS to launch in 2020. It still could but as time goes by the likelihood is decreasing. Over the next year should determine if NASA has been able to decrease the schedule slip factor and is able to somewhat keep the program more on track or not. If not then a launch in 2020 possibility will be known by this time next year as not likely to occur. But hopefully NASA and it's contractors get a handle on the issues and get the program back on track with it's schedules and actually meet the dates in the schedules. Schedules are tricky. With a high dependency and multiple crossover points between separate hardware/software development project threads a technical/schedule problem in just one place can cause everything to be delayed. As launch date gets closer and hardware/software moves into testing and integration the schedule dependency gets more severe not less. Cause more delays just because a simple widget does not work that would have earlier not been a threat to the schedule and had been generally ignored until when during integration the design has been found to be inadequate.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 06:29 pm


This is exactly the point.  Building a system as expensive and incapable as SLS/Orion gets us no where worthwhile.  Who gives a flip if we putter around a high Lunar orbit in a tin can?  For $4B per year...

Quote
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable of ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....

The ISS is far more capable of long term spaceflight and science than Orion ever will be.


If that Science was the best bang for the buck, then the relevant departments within government/industry would be paying their full share of the costs of their share of use. For instance, if public health studies use 10% of the stations research capability, then NIH would be willing to pay 10% of the operating costs rather than fund some other research on the ground. If the ground research had a bigger impact for the same money, they wouldn't be willing to fund it. Same with Heliophysics, Earth Science, Astrophysics, DOE, department of defense, USDA, Department of Education, NSF, NOAA, Proctor and Gamble, etc., etc.  The seeming fact that none of them are willing to should speak volumes to the ISS's cost efficiency for scientific research. It also doesn't do much for HSF except repeat the same HSF task over and over again for decades on end. The only semi-unique capability it has for HSF is proving out longer duration spaceflight, of which nothing has been done on that for over 2 years. But the only reason you want to go longer, is to go farther...or to save money (ISS really isn't helping with the second). And if you had the capability to go farther, you would by default have the pre-requisite capability to test whatever duration is required to go that distance using the same exact system.

Anyways, you can do microgravity experiments far cheaper using Dragonlab/Cygnus/Dream chaser. Then the users might actually pay for it or a significant portion of it.


As far as SLS/Orion and long duration spaceflight. A single SLS Block 1B can put about 6 fully loaded cygnus spacecraft(about 32,000 kg) in NRHO...which should be able to supply a crew of 6 for 12 months (or a crew of 3 for 24 months) if ISS is anything to go by.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 06/30/2018 07:12 pm
. The only semi-unique capability it has for HSF is proving out longer duration spaceflight, of which nothing has been done on that for over 2 years. But the only reason you want to go longer, is to go farther...or to save money (ISS really isn't helping with the second). And if you had the capability to go farther, you would by default have the pre-requisite capability to test whatever duration is required to go that distance using the same exact system.

Anyways, you can do microgravity experiments far cheaper using Dragonlab/Cygnus/Dream chaser. Then the users might actually pay for it or a significant portion of it.

That isn't the only reason why you would want to go for longer duration. Lets say you want an experiment to run for months or years the ISS can do that. Lets say you want to test technology that could be used for long duration spaceflight without endangering the crew, the ISS can do that and do it more economically than say a BEO flight. It not only can test one technology it can test different ones. You might want to check out the ISS space station research page for a list of experiments that are ongoing(there are a lot!).

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category)

One of the more interesting ones is a different type of C02 scrubber. It is not the main life support system, but something else and by default no you might not have the capability. Orion can go further, but can not provide as much power or crew time or even in space time as the ISS. LOP-G isn't even going to be manned 24/7.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 06/30/2018 08:28 pm
You might want to check out the ISS space station research page for a list of experiments that are ongoing(there are a lot!).

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments_category)


If you filter to all categories and Expedition 65/66, there are 23 results. There are more in "UN" - 65. Anybody know what UN means? Even if there were 100 in a year, that is $35-40 million dollars per experiment. If you filter by NIH sponsored there are 2 results total. So, even when they don't have to pay for astronaut time, up lift, down lift, power usage, data usage, ISS engineering- NIH still apparently doesn't think it is worth it. Perhaps because the government has blocked off about half a billion dollars in ISS research funding per year, it crowds out potential users and the ability to gauge what the actual value to the government is.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/01/2018 12:32 am
According to Boeing (AIAA Space 2013) Block IB does 39.1 t to TLI.

So this motivated me to look up the recent numbers and it's 37-40 for the cargo version and 34-37 for the crew.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/sls_fact_sheet_06122018.pdf

One of the problems with SLS, is that large solids are expensive and not reusable.  Also the liquid engines are also expensive and unless I am mistaken, do not use any 3D printed parts.

Compared to the rest of it, the solids are a freakin' bargain.  In fact I wish they would put another couple solids on the thing.  Probably cheaper to add solids then design the new upper stage. (Note, I have no clue whether a couple solids would cause extreme crushing.)

This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile. Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....

You seem to think that people have a fanatical devotion to the ISS.  The ISS is... tolerable.  It's the best we have but it's still kinda obsolete.  Even before expanding modules and larger rockets there were ways that we could have used the lessons of the ISS to make a more efficient replacement station.  In fact that's a bit of a missed opportunity for the SLS.  If they had only designed it from the start as a platform to launch a bigger, cheaper space station they would at least have had a worthwhile mission that could be done quickly.  Launching a 70 ton expandable module would mean a volume equal to the ISS could fit in a single launch.  With that sort of space to play around with they could have made bulkier, cheaper life support system, made a propellant depot and easily fit all of the scientific equipment.  Something like that would save money, even at SLS prices.

Man, sucks that they didn't do that.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/01/2018 01:58 am
You made a factually incorrect statement. Obama did not advocate cancelling the Constellation program in 2007

Actually he did, although he couched it in terms of "delaying" rather than out and out canceling.

Words matter. Stick to the definitions everyone uses, which means "delay" does not mean "cancel".

As to Trump when he was on the campaign trail, he said in response to a question from a young boy about Trump's opinions about NASA:

Quote
"You know, in the old days, it was great," Trump told the boy, along with an audience of more than 600. "Right now, we have bigger problems — you understand that? We've got to fix our potholes. You know, we don't exactly have a lot of money."

Which is why I said you can't go by what politicians say, only what they do.

Quote
My point was that you could see CxP's demise coming from a mile away in those days.

Yes, and why was it so obvious to everyone? Because the program was seriously behind schedule, over budget, and the "business case" for returning government employees back to the Moon was uninspiring. Sound familiar?

And as I have pointed out many times, just because the development of a transportation system has been funded doesn't mean that there is real demand for the transportation system. Meaning that in the 8 years since the creation of the SLS and Orion programs Congress has refused to fully fund ANY programs that MUST use one or both of them.

Think about that.

When the Shuttle finally launched, there was a manifest backlog of over 40 flights worth of payloads.

SLS supporters like to talk about is how everything will be better when the biggest version of the SLS launches in the next decade or so. Which is likely wishful thinking, because if there are no payloads for the smallest version of the SLS, then in a world of constrained NASA budgets it's hard to think MORE demand would appear for the biggest version.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/01/2018 02:12 am
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.

There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.

I'm definitely part of the former, and you seem to be part of the latter. Right?

Quote
Who gives a flip if we putter around in low earth orbit in a tin can? For $4B per year....

One reason is that NASA as an organization wants to do a lot more in space than just short trips, but right now NASA does not know enough to do more than short trips in space beyond LEO. For instance, NASA medical would not sign off on sending humans to Mars as of today, which maybe is not a problem if you're a Moon fan and not a Mars fan, but it matters to NASA.

Quote
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about?

You do realize we've already done that, so why do you think taxpayers should pay for a publicity stunt like that? Have you no concern for taxpayer money?

The concern for the SLS program is that it is not a good use of taxpayer money in support of a national need. And we have lots of national needs these days, so it's not like we don't have other uses for the money being spent on the SLS.

Which is why if the SLS is to survive, there needs to be a long-term "need" that it supports. Because the SLS is only a transportation system - a means to an end, but not the end itself. The SLS "lives" for a couple of minutes and then disappears below the surface of the Atlantic while the real mission continues on into space. 15 minutes of fame.

But without the science that is being done on the ISS, it's far less likely that there would be a "need" for a space transportation system of any kind, including the SLS. So you should really be more appreciative of the ISS than you are...  ;)

My $0.02
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 07/01/2018 02:20 am
{snip}
Words matter. Stick to the definitions everyone uses, which means "delay" does not mean "cancel".
{snip}

In a business meeting or press release delaying the start means cancel.

Not to be confused with a project that is late and over budget.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/01/2018 04:39 am
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.

There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.


And you don't expand into space by going to LEO, unless you plan on eating photons, or mining the solar wind/exosphere, you need some sort of mass as a resource. Mining the exosphere would be interesting, but presents massive technical issues. I suppose with the nuclear chemistry of the 23rd century, you could create whatever element you want out of the atmospheric gases. On the other hand, wholesale creation of matter from the ether is probably pretty far out.

That means you at least have to go to 1 lunar distance, which is the closest significant source of mass there is with a decent mix of volatiles and heavier elements. Beyond that are asteroids, Mars, etc, but the floor for expansion into space is 1 lunar distance.

And I don't know who said anything about short trips. A single SLS Block 1B can put 6 full loaded Cygnus modules in NRHO or 2-3 on the lunar surface, which could supply a crew of 3 for 2 years or 8-12 months respectively. So, the idea that there is some sort of limit to super short duration because of SLS/Orion capacity just doesn't hold water. And that isn't even counting that cargo manifest lists often have crew supplies at ~15% of the mass. I'm assuming the resupply mass per person per day stays at total ISS historical uplift levels, even though there are things in there that are not absolutely necessary, like the latest Chinese designed laptops or gorilla suits.

Quote
You do realize we've already done that, so why do you think taxpayers should pay for a publicity stunt like that? Have you no concern for taxpayer money?

It is national policy to return humans to the lunar surface. Lunar free return would be a step in that direction. It is no more of a publicity stunt than sending government employees to LEO.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: RonM on 07/01/2018 04:50 am
And I don't know who said anything about short trips. A single SLS Block 1B can put 6 full loaded Cygnus modules in NRHO or 2-3 on the lunar surface, which could supply a crew of 3 for 2 years or 8-12 months respectively. So, the idea that there is some sort of limit to super short duration because of SLS/Orion capacity just doesn't hold water. And that isn't even counting that cargo manifest lists often have crew supplies at ~15% of the mass. I'm assuming the resupply mass per person per day stays at total ISS historical uplift levels, even though there are things in there that are not absolutely necessary, like the latest Chinese designed laptops or gorilla suits.

Where are the plans for these lunar cargo missions? SLS can do a lot of things, but Congress hasn't funded a program worthy of its size or expense. If Congress isn't going to fund big payloads, then why do we need SLS?

That's the problem. SLS will be a very capable launch system, but with nothing to launch that can't be launched with smaller rockets.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: su27k on 07/01/2018 05:24 am
Instead of sending astronauts to LEO for trip #200 and day #7300, why don't you actually fund that circumlunar mission that SpaceX was talking about? This repeat and rewash of the same rote task over and over again is just as pointless as using ISS's budget to fly astronauts to sub-orbital space 3 times a day.

You're asking why NASA doesn't fund Dragon 2/FH lunar flyby mission? Seriously?

The reason is super obvious: It would be a big embarrassment for SLS/Orion (and NASA HSF in general, also piss off certain people in congress), since FH and Dragon 2 can do it so much cheaper and faster. Just read Eric Berger's account on NASA's reaction to the lunar flyby announcement, senior NASA management is not happy with the announcement at all.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 07/01/2018 01:52 pm
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.

There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.

I'm definitely part of the former, and you seem to be part of the latter. Right?

...

I, too, am part of the former.  Humanity has a basic drive to explore and discover.  Science is fundamentally just that -- and then we reap the benefit of the discoveries as a society.  Maybe this is why exploration and discovery are hard-wired into our character -- it may be the process by which humanity survived and thrived is most every corner of the planet when only stone tools were state-of-the-art technology and the planet was a very dangerous place for a slow and probably tasty biped.

Problem with SLS/Orion is that Congress/NASA/large defense contractors have settled for a whole lot less so that their nests would be well feathered.  We cannot realistically 'explore' with a system as costly and incapable as this old tech.  Settling for a tin can in the vicinity the Moon is not exploration, it actually is a roadblock to exploration. (Note: error in former post, meant Lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit)

Because of the penchant for spending without return, instead of purchasing value for taxpayers' funds, SLS/Orion will likely continue until it collapses of its own weight as did Constellation*.  Best we can hope for from the USG is that some or all of the funds freed up when that happens go to true exploration; second best would be that the USG stays out of the way. 


* Post mortem will show that SLS/Orion repeated virtually all of the Constellation errors.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/01/2018 02:56 pm
This is exactly the point. Building a system as expensive and incapable as ISS gets us no where worthwhile.

There is this interesting divide in the space community. Some want to focus on figuring out how humanity will be able to expand out into space - and stay there, while others just want to go somewhere for short trips.

I'm definitely part of the former, and you seem to be part of the latter. Right?

...

I, too, am part of the former.  Humanity has a basic drive to explore and discover.  Science is fundamentally just that -- and then we reap the benefit of the discoveries as a society.  Maybe this is why exploration and discovery are hard-wired into our character -- it may be the process by which humanity survived and thrived is most every corner of the planet when only stone tools were state-of-the-art technology and the planet was a very dangerous place for a slow and probably tasty biped.

Problem with SLS/Orion is that Congress/NASA/large defense contractors have settled for a whole lot less so that their nests would be well feathered.  We cannot realistically 'explore' with a system as costly and incapable as this old tech.  Settling for a tin can in the vicinity the Moon is not exploration, it actually is a roadblock to exploration. (Note: error in former post, meant Lunar orbit instead of Earth orbit)

Because of the penchant for spending without return, instead of purchasing value for taxpayers' funds, SLS/Orion will likely continue until it collapses of its own weight as did Constellation*.  Best we can hope for from the USG is that some or all of the funds freed up when that happens go to true exploration; second best would be that the USG stays out of the way. 


* Post mortem will show that SLS/Orion repeated virtually all of the Constellation errors.

Problem with ISS is that Congress/NASA/large defense contractors have settled for a whole lot less so that their nests would be well feathered.  We cannot realistically 'explore' with a system as costly and incapable as this old tech.  Settling for a tin can in the vicinity the Earth is not exploration, it actually is a roadblock to exploration.

Because of the penchant for spending without return, instead of purchasing value for taxpayers' funds, ISS will likely continue until it collapses of its own weight as did the Space Shuttle.  Best we can hope for from the USG is that some or all of the funds freed up when that happens go to true exploration; second best would be that the USG stays out of the way. 

Pot calling the kettle black IMO. As far as the USG being in the way. I seriously doubt that anything the USG does will block the use of whatever trajectories or launch windows that SpaceX or anybody else will want. This idea that the USG space activities is hindering anything or "in the way"(especially exploration) is one of the more bizarre ideas that I have seen pop up on occasion. Think about that...SpaceX wants to land on Mars, but that damn rover is where they want their landing spot making the landing hazardous. If you are talking about regulation, like the licensing of non-traditional commercial space activities to fulfill OST obligations, that is a seperate thing that has nothing to do with major USG activities like GPS, Shuttle, ISS, SLS, etc. As far as launch sites. There are lots of states that want a spaceport, there is no reason  to say that SLS took the exact spot where they wanted their pad (39B). Using for essentially free infrastructure that the USG built or paying to keep the lights on (SpaceX) is hardly being in the way. And if they were in the way, it has nothing to do with the context in which this idea comes up (the subject of SLS/Orion). The fault for SpaceX not sending Red Dragon to Mars in May like they said they would (which was used as an argument to cancel SLS/Orion btw) is 100% the fault of SpaceX. Even the planetary protection folks were super quiet about sending bird droppings to mars on the outside of the spacecraft. The USG is going out of their way to accommodate them. I know there is a need to shift responsibility.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/01/2018 03:54 pm
ISS has not been a useless program far far from it. We never had an orbiting complex that allowed for long duration or even one year or longer stays in micro gravity. Additionally COTS money is a big part of why SpaceX was able to get where they are, without it I doubt they would have survived long enough to develop the technology that is actually making real change in the modern day. No BFR no raptor no merlin 1 d no falcon 9 blocks no landings.

I could go on about all the research done on station but it's not worth it. While ISS shares many of the same faults as Apollo, Shuttle, and yes even CXP and SLS, the main difference is that ISS despite all the odds, all the cuts all the shortcomings, actually got built and works and does useful things/. ISS is a massive achievement and may end up being the greatest thing we ever do in space, though I really hope not.

So to summarize it's apples to oranges IMO to try and compare the ISS program with SLS.

Also let me point out something else right now, something I learned from CXP. Mike Griffin originally wanted to discard ISS in 2015 or earlier. Let that sink in for a minute. He wanted to use the money from ISS to help get CXP going. Here is the rub:
Even with that money CXP would have continued suffering further delays, the stick would still not have worked, and Ares V and Altair would still not have ever been built. Nothing would have changed except ISS would be in the drink with decades of hard work totally wasted and all these years of science never used and oh, no COTS monies.

If you killed ISS right now and raided the entire budget, hell lets go further, if you did that AND killed SMD and JWST, you STILL would not be able to do anything more than perhaps buy a couple extra SLS flights and maybe human rate ICPS. That's it. You would still not have enough money to speed up the timeline, you would still not be able to pay to build and operate LOPG, you would still not have enough money for DSG, you would still not be able to build any follow on SLS blocks, such as those capable of the much vaunted '100mt to LEO' any faster or at all for that matter.

That is how much this thing costs. It literally sucks all the air out of the room for a vehicle which after all this, you throw into the atlantic ocean after a few short minutes of flight. PLEASE think about how absurd this, please for the love of rockets realize how insane this is.

Even if everything went according to plan this vehicle would at best fly two or three times maximum then be cancelled it will not survive.

In my mind the minute SpaceX started re-flying core stages it was already over for government PORk expendable launch vehicles.

Also this idea that SLS can compete with commercial anything is absolute garbage nonsense pyscho babble. SLS was never designed to compete with commercial neither was any other NASA program except for VentureStar in its infancy, which was also not a compete so much as a replace. There is a reason EELVs exist. To those suggesting SLS was intended to compete with commercial vehicles I highly suggest you read about why EELV became a thing and learn the history, because its a totally ridiculous statement.

The only one more ridiculous was when Doug Cooke was telling us J130 violated the laws of physics and Mike Griffin was insisting Ares 1 was safer than EELVs as an excuse to justify its horrible cost despite the fact that members of this forum literally ran the models for core stage failure and turns out you can't survive being pelted with burning meteors made of solid fuel.

SLS was not, cannot, will never, was never, made to compete with commercial vehicles for payloads this was not the intent. The intent was to provide NASA and lawmakers with an affordable HLV that would be operational in its block 1 form, with capability to return crew to ISS, by 2016. This never happened nor did any of the other things SLS was mandated to do or conform to so it literally fails to do even what it was legislated to do, which was the under pinning for all this to start with.

So yes, one more time SLS is a joke and it's fast becoming a worse joke than the stick, simply because it's the same exact thing a second time.

One more thing, no Augustine Commission did not invent or invite "ares IV lite" that is ridiculous. They suggested a 26.7 inline SDHLV similar to J130 with block 2 being close to a J246 only with a j2x upper stage instead of RL 10, but made no specific recommendations. Aug Com did not invent SLS that is ridiculous, with that said Aug Com was also very hesitant and very harsh with regard to the idea of another government run LV program, and much was said about finding a better model for providing LV's, including with regard to what we had at the time commercially which was ULA EELV.

The Marshall Spaceflight center lobbying group in Alabama would do really well to remember their history and how they screwed up the last program so badly before coming in here and trying to re write history.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/01/2018 04:21 pm

One more thing, no Augustine Commission did not invent or invite "ares IV lite" that is ridiculous. They suggested a 26.7 inline SDHLV similar to J130 with block 2 being close to a J246 only with a j2x upper stage instead of RL 10, but made no specific recommendations. Aug Com did not invent SLS that is ridiculous, with that said Aug Com was also very hesitant and very harsh with regard to the idea of another government run LV program, and much was said about finding a better model for providing LV's, including with regard to what we had at the time commercially which was ULA EELV.

Quote
First, the Committee examined the question: do we need a heavy-lift capability? While it is obvious that the ability to inject massive spacecraft away from low-Earth orbit is vital for exploration, there is some question as to the smallest practical size of the launcher that will be used to carry cargo to low-Earth orbit. The Committee reviewed the issue of whether exploration beyond low-Earth orbit will require a “super heavy-lift” launch vehicle (i.e., larger than the current “heavy” EELVs, whose mass to low-Earth orbit is in the 20-25 mt range), and concluded that it will. However, the rationale for this decision is subtler than usually thought, and hinges on three factors: the size and mass capability of the launcher and of the entire U.S. launch capacity; in-space refueling capability; and the launch reliability expected for a given mission.

No one knows for certain the mass or dimensions of the largest piece of hardware that will be required for future exploration missions. It will likely be larger than 25 metric tons (mt) in mass, and may be larger than the approximately five-meter diameter fairing of the largest current launchers

The committee concluded that EELV was likely not going to cut it.

One more thing, no Augustine Commission did not invent or invite "ares IV lite" that is ridiculous.

The Augustine commission proposed a possible smaller vehicle with around 140 mT of lift including 5 segment shuttle derived solids that launched both crew and cargo. That is essentially what was done for SLS. Congress, when creating SLS, put the payload target at 130 mT +. NASA decided to use more flight proven hardware for propulsion that they had more direct experience operating and in the SSME case, they already had the engines on hand for 4 flights. RL-10 replaced J-2X and SSME replaced RS-68. And initial plans for SLS followed the Ares V Lite model in that it did use a J-2X upper stage.

Augustine Commision Report:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: blasphemer on 07/01/2018 05:22 pm
The committe concluded that EELV was likely not going to cut it.

From the final report:

Quote
The upgraded EELV
systems  would  have  a  core
vehicle that would, by itself,
have  a  launch  capability  to
low-Earth orbit in the range
of 30 to 35 mt.  Using a “su-
per-heavy” variant that would
have a core and two boosters
of the same basic design, and
when  used  in  conjunction
with an upgraded common hy-
drogen/oxygen upper stage, it
is  likely  to  have  a  maximum
payload to low-Earth orbit in
the range of 75 mt.  This ex-
ceeds  the  nominal  minimum
for  a  heavy  lifter  useful  for
exploration as defined above.
 
A representative of this cate-
gory of launchers is the Atlas
5 Phase 2 Heavy.

Upgraded EELV was going to cut it, and was explicitly recommended as an option by the commission. This is without orbital refueling. Assuming refueling, there is following:

Quote
If
there were the capability to fuel
propulsion stages in space, the
single-largest  mass  launched
would be considerably less than
in the absence of in-space refu-
eling.  The mass that must be
launched to low-Earth orbit in
the current NASA plan, without
its fuel on board, is in the range
of 25 to 40 mt, setting a notion-
al lower limit on the size of the
super heavy-lift launch vehicle
if refueling is available.

In this case you dont even need a triple core variant, upgraded single core Atlas, or Vulcan in current times, would be enough.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/01/2018 06:49 pm
From Aug Com:

Quote
All of the options would benefit from the development of inspace
refueling, and the smaller rockets would benefit most
of all.
A potential government-guaranteed market to provide
fuel in low-Earth orbit would create a strong stimulus to the
commercial launch industry.
The Committee cautions against the tradition of designing
for ultimate performance at the expense of reliability, operational
efficiency, and life-cycle cost.

Many proposal were made including keeping CXP, Sidemount LV, Flexible path EELV, DIRECT, and others. Aug Com did not invent SLS neither did any of the other aforementioned groups. And flawed though it was biased though it was towards forcing a larger vehicle, neither did the Space Act itself.

The intent was always to get a 70 mt launcher going ASAP. That was supposed to be priority number one, it was supposed to be man rated, it was supposed to have real missions such as ending the HSF gap in the event commercial crew was not ready by 2016. By getting that vehicle flying first you would have had a very good rocket already operational in the event your development program aimed and phasing in a larger version failed or was handicapped. You could also have freed up money for interesting payloads. There is literally no point in building any of the "block one" SLS vehicles if all you do is use them as random test missions once every other year, that was never the idea.
Also the intent was never to have NASA and a blatantly adversarial administrator (bolden at the time) spend almost two years delaying and avoiding starting work on SLS all the while destroying more shuttle hardware and laying more people off both of which directly contributed to major delays and over-runs.

You have what you have now because of poor congressional oversight yet again, this time purposefully because it's a jobs program not a space program, and because of absolutely abhorrent NASA and contractor management same as we had during CXP.

Aug Com did not invent the current SLS. By the way, even though the 130-140MT vehicle was not what most people thought was a good idea, you could have still built that vehicle by now had it been done the way it was recommended to be done when it was recommended to be started without any of the other nonsense, you just have to actually do what makes sense instead of whatever is being done here. Too bad they didn't do that.

Final reminder, if the pre ESAS architecture of a 26.7 4 seg 3-4 RS25 engine inline had been adhered to post ESAS we would not be here having this conversation the rocket would have entered service prior to STS ending. Again, idiotic management and poorly run government PORk program is to blaim.

Once again the definition of insanity is doing the same the wrong over and over and expecting different results. It is absolutely insane to continue this farce and to suggest further that a government LV program is the way forward anymore, after all of this insanity. It doesn't work, it can't work, and NASA as well as Congress have proven incapable of executing it. Bid out the damn launch vehicle COTS style and use the budget to build the actual MISSION elements so there can actually be a MISSION. Because right now we have a rocket to nowhere going nowhere doing nothing but wasting time and money.

Mars by 2050? Why? You could be on Mars 5 years from now if you did what made sense it is not this complicated we knew how to do it in 1975. It is being made excessively complicated and expensive as a result of corruption plain and simple.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/01/2018 08:18 pm
ISS has not been a useless program far far from it. We never had an orbiting complex that allowed for long duration or even one year or longer stays in micro gravity. Additionally COTS money is a big part of why SpaceX was able to get where they are, without it I doubt they would have survived long enough to develop the technology that is actually making real change in the modern day. No BFR no raptor no merlin 1 d no falcon 9 blocks no landings.

These are use cases that the ISS have already accomplished. What is the point of continuing it until it falls apart?

"Additionally COTS money is a big part of why SpaceX was able to get where they are" - completed

"long duration or even one year or longer stays in micro gravity" - completed even though there is no point in long duration without a BLEO program with a vehicle that can use the research into that duration of spaceflight.

And spending billions per year so $1 billion total goes to COTS is questionably economical. You are assuming that SpaceX isn't capable of winning any other contract except LEO contracts, which justifies the existence of the LEO contract category as a requirement so SpaceX stays alive.

I could go on about all the research done on station but it's not worth it. While ISS shares many of the same faults as Apollo, Shuttle, and yes even CXP and SLS, the main difference is that ISS despite all the odds, all the cuts all the shortcomings, actually got built and works and does useful things/. ISS is a massive achievement and may end up being the greatest thing we ever do in space, though I really hope not.

How far would ISS have got if it gets cut off 6 years after conception? After 6 years, you look around and see nothing in orbit, then you cancel it. Is this being applied across the board? Boeing was awarded the construction contract in 1992 (IIRC), which means conception was far before that. First element launch was 1998ish. So, basically, not even the first launch. Same with Commercial Crew or Shuttle (which built the ISS). And while I mention Commercial Crew, what is the point of developing a vehicle that is planned to be retired before it even flies? See, you can pick apart basically anything. Everything in existence has negative and positive attributes. You can list all the negatives, and ignore all the positives.

If you killed ISS right now and raided the entire budget, hell lets go further, if you did that AND killed SMD and JWST, you STILL would not be able to do anything more than perhaps buy a couple extra SLS flights and maybe human rate ICPS. That's it. You would still not have enough money to speed up the timeline, you would still not be able to pay to build and operate LOPG, you would still not have enough money for DSG, you would still not be able to build any follow on SLS blocks, such as those capable of the much vaunted '100mt to LEO' any faster or at all for that matter.

You should look at the budget I posted a few pages back. I didn't raid any budget for SLS/Orion. SLS and Orion gets modest cuts in resources to fund back up options and additional capacity and other components required for a complete architecture. ISS completed its mission after 20 years and if it hasn't completed its mission in 20 years, who is to say it will complete its mission in 30?
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/01/2018 09:17 pm
Cough. SLS Discussion Thread. On topic please!
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/02/2018 08:57 am

You should look at the budget I posted a few pages back. I didn't raid any budget for SLS/Orion. SLS and Orion gets modest cuts in resources to fund back up options and additional capacity and other components required for a complete architecture. ISS completed its mission after 20 years and if it hasn't completed its mission in 20 years, who is to say it will complete its mission in 30?

Here is the value of ISS and COTS over SLS ad why the mission of the ISS is ongoing and the mission of something like SLS ends in a few minutes.

Your 2 kg of water per crew is based off ISS numbers. The ISS has a water recycling system that can recycle up 70% of the crew’s waste water.  If you don’t have a system like that on your lunar base then the water needs are going to increase.  With short duration craft like Apollo , Shuttle and Orion recycling makes less sense due to mass, volume, and power requirements as well as the very short nature of the trip 14-21 days vs. months/years. With long  duration craft like the kind you are forced to if you are heading to Mars it does. In fact the life support on a short duration craft is rather different that one for longer duration. LEO is the perfect proving grounds for such a systems because of the much higher flight rate of supplies to the ISS. If something breaks or does not work as planned a replacement part could be sent in 3 months or sooner(i.e. quick exchange this part with that thing on the next resupply flight).  With a flight rate of only about 2 per year any resupply that uses SLS is going to be slow. This higher flight rate is helped by the fact that launch costs are cheaper to LEO than to BEO. In addition we can (and did) make improvements to the system(which is easier to do with more intensive use—i.e. a base that is manned 24/7 and gets frequent resupply).

You specified 1kg of food per day ignores volume issues. Life support tends to be bulky not heavy, which is why no Dragon spacecraft has reached it’s mass limit when sending up supplies.  Food items plus their packaging tend to take up a lot of space. What if you could feed the crew for longer using the same amount of volume? Seed(or seed packs) plus fertilizer take up much less volume than a food pack not to mention the improvements in taste, nutrition, and the psychological boost the crew gets from the plants. That is what the VEGGIE experiment does and again due to research in LEO we know that we can not depend on being able to harvest seeds for a 2nd crop yet(due to radiation).  While the did sprout some seed in moon dirt from Apollo on earth, we did not attempt to test if the plant would grow to maturity and test both the safety and nutritional value of it.  With the VEGGIE experiment(and others) they did and it involved testing on both the ISS and on the ground. Again much easier with the ability to return samples more often.

The trouble is that due to distance and cost experiments like this would be more costly to do on a lunar base and take way more time. Also while ISRU is nice, it works better if the ISRU only needs to top off for loses say the 30% water lose verses needing to supply 70% of the bases water. And such system is likely to suffer frequent breakdowns in it’s early develop which is easer to fix and resolve with faster resupply. I mean which problem is easier to deal with a broken ISRU unit when supplies and parts could be coming in 3 months or the one where at best it could be 6 months before the part arrives.

SLS’s slow flight rate and the fact that it is a single point of failure makes depending on it risky. Also those LEO COTS flights are what enabled Space X to develop landings. It would have gone a lot slower without those COTS contracts because most other flights for commercial are not to LEO and LEO is the easier place to develop reuse.

If the heavy lifter were cheaper we could afford to resupply the lunar base more often or have a larger crew and we could afford more than one system to do it with which would greatly reduce risk and expand the possibilities of the lunar base.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: AncientU on 07/02/2018 12:01 pm
...

Pot calling the kettle black IMO. As far as the USG being in the way. I seriously doubt that anything the USG does will block the use of whatever trajectories or launch windows that SpaceX or anybody else will want. This idea that the USG space activities is hindering anything or "in the way"(especially exploration) is one of the more bizarre ideas that I have seen pop up on occasion. ...

Watch what happens when SLS/Orion is threatened by a new exploration-class vehicle.
Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).*/Congressional lapdogs/large defense contractors working on SLS/Orion will try to take it out.

This exact coalition is already standing in the way of orbital refueling and an architecture that uses existing and under-development commercial launch vehicles.


* appreciate the robo-editorial insertion.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: oldAtlas_Eguy on 07/02/2018 03:38 pm
...

Pot calling the kettle black IMO. As far as the USG being in the way. I seriously doubt that anything the USG does will block the use of whatever trajectories or launch windows that SpaceX or anybody else will want. This idea that the USG space activities is hindering anything or "in the way"(especially exploration) is one of the more bizarre ideas that I have seen pop up on occasion. ...

Watch what happens when SLS/Orion is threatened by a new exploration-class vehicle.
Alabama (sorry, need to stop here for a second and just say that I have to use stupid words to get my point across. I know that means I must have a weak argument, but that's why I use bad words).*/Congressional lapdogs/large defense contractors working on SLS/Orion will try to take it out.

This exact coalition is already standing in the way of orbital refueling and an architecture that uses existing and under-development commercial launch vehicles.


* appreciate the robo-editorial insertion.
It is not that there is a direct connection between SLS (congressional support) and other  SHLV commercial existing g and under development. It is just that the programs that the involved contractors of SLS do not have reason to spend any of their own capitol to develop any features that would compete with an ongoing profitable (to them) contract. This is why the development of competing features using ACES is so delayed. But other providers not involved with SLS do not have the disincentive. But the lack of support as a customer does make some impact on their schedule.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: ncb1397 on 07/02/2018 04:02 pm

You should look at the budget I posted a few pages back. I didn't raid any budget for SLS/Orion. SLS and Orion gets modest cuts in resources to fund back up options and additional capacity and other components required for a complete architecture. ISS completed its mission after 20 years and if it hasn't completed its mission in 20 years, who is to say it will complete its mission in 30?

Here is the value of ISS and COTS over SLS ad why the mission of the ISS is ongoing and the mission of something like SLS ends in a few minutes.

Your 2 kg of water per crew is based off ISS numbers. The ISS has a water recycling system that can recycle up 70% of the crew’s waste water.  If you don’t have a system like that on your lunar base then the water needs are going to increase. 

No, 2 kg of water per person per day is with no recycling. About half for oxygen generation, and about half for drinking water. I calculated the resupply needs of the station up thread and it came to <1kg of water per person per day. 1 kg of water for drinking is 35 -36 ounces, 55% of the 8 8 ounces glasses that you hear is "recommended". Drinking an 8 ounce glass of water every 3 hours isn't required though.

Quote
LEO is the perfect proving grounds for such a systems because of the much higher flight rate of supplies to the ISS. If something breaks or does not work as planned a replacement part could be sent in 3 months or sooner(i.e. quick exchange this part with that thing on the next resupply flight).  With a flight rate of only about 2 per year any resupply that uses SLS is going to be slow.

You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS. Heck, if we are just talking a 2 kg part, you could use an Electron. Launch windows to the moon are very frequent. Otherwise, you keep additional spares on hand. On ISS, when one CDRA breaks, they use the other one. And if ISS is supposed to be practice for going to Mars, you can't keep using quick easy resupply as a crutch. You need to be able to figure out how many replacement parts of which type you need for X duration. The large lander will likely be compatible with multiple rockets of multiple sizes. You would simply size it to about 50 mT (upper end of SLS block II  to TLI) and if the rocket can throw it to TLI, that's great, you get a lot of payload, but if it can only go to sub - GTO (SLS Block 1?), GTO (SLS Block 1B?) or essentially LEO ( Falcon Heavy), the payload would just scale accordingly.

Quote
You specified 1kg of food per day ignores volume issues.

Further up thread I start measuring payload in fully loaded cygnus spacecraft. For instance, 13,000 kg is 2-3 fully loaded Cygnus. 2 - 3 cygnus should last 4-6 months volume wise. The only variable is reduced recycling so more volume for water, but water is ultra dense. 1,000 kg per cubic meter. This does not ignore volume issues. SLS supports payload fairings up to 1800 cubic meters which volume wise is 30+ Cygnus spacecraft.

note to mods: I tried to relate any reference to ISS back to SLS lifting requirements or flight rate requirements.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: johnfwhitesell on 07/03/2018 05:17 am
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.

I think you are onto something here.  Express deliveries on smaller rockets could definitely help simplify the logistics by giving you more margin for error.  You could even make regularly scheduled express deliveries where every two months you send over whatever is needed most.  And if you committed to a block buy of express deliveries, say buying 12 launches each on two different systems, you could get a decent price and reliability.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: redliox on 07/03/2018 05:55 am
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.

I think you are onto something here.  Express deliveries on smaller rockets could definitely help simplify the logistics by giving you more margin for error.  You could even make regularly scheduled express deliveries where every two months you send over whatever is needed most. 

Right.  It makes sense to use whatever's convenient and cost-effective, at least ideally.  If you're going to send up a lot of supplies, I would presume it is because a smaller rocket can't reach the same distance and even then you're juggling delta-v around.

Regarding SLS in this regard, it would make more sense if it focused on sending up large modules or spacecraft while other launchers handle the logistics.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Coastal Ron on 07/03/2018 06:03 am
You can use other rockets and small landers for logistics express delivery. In fact, this is exactly what NASA is doing in CLPS.

I think you are onto something here.  Express deliveries on smaller rockets could definitely help simplify the logistics by giving you more margin for error.

"Smaller rockets" is a misnomer.

If the goal is to expand humanity out into space, then commodity transportation should become the standard that is used. Today that would likely be EELV-class launchers, since they would have the best $/kg ratio for moving mass to LEO. And once mass is in LEO, then we can use in-space assembly, reusable transportation systems, and fuel depots to move mass to it's final destination.

Frequent launches spread across multiple providers is the only way the market will be incentivized to reduce transportation costs significantly. SpaceX is already doing this, as is Blue Origin, but we will need a more diverse launch services industry in order to have a robust, reliable transportation system out to our Moon and beyond.

Quote
And if you committed to a block buy of express deliveries, say buying 12 launches each on two different systems, you could get a decent price and reliability.

Reliability should not change over time with the current generation of launch systems - they are already well into the high 90% range. And absent new rocket designs (i.e. reusability), it's not the number of launches that drives down cost but the frequency of launches - but even then current designs are near the bottom of their price points due to the way they were designed.

Regardless how we got to this point, the SLS is only needed for a limited set of requirements. So the question is whether there is enough demand for those requirements.

For instance, if the U.S. Government needed fuel depots in space, then commodity commercial launchers will be the least expensive option to provide that service. The same if the goal is to move as many people as possible to & from LEO, commercial services will be the least costly option - and they can provide more redundancy than the SLS can due to multiple launch systems.

The question then becomes how many times per decade, for decades to come, will the U.S. Government need to move large/bulky to space? Since that is the only real advantage that the SLS has over commercial rockets, the size of the payload and the weight of the payload.

But if the philosophy changes about how we approach building things in space, and in-space assembly becomes the norm like it was with the ISS, then the business case for large single-use rockets becomes less supportable.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/03/2018 07:09 am
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:

Quote
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.

Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.

Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.

What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.

Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now
Vulcan is under development right now and an exit path for DIV and Atlas V is in sight.
ACES honestly could enter service whenever ULA really want's it to.
NG, which now owns Orbital ATK, may well seek to develop a next gen EELV as well. I would be shocked if they don't try to get in on this and they have the capital available for a pretty aggressive effort if they choose to exert it. 

Meanwhile the "not the real SLS" SLS test vehicle has yet to even be fully constructed. Yet all of the above has been accomplished for less and in less time.

This is what I mean when I say it's a joke, this literally is a joke. It is a joke to think SLS provides anything you actually will need, or even will ever be capable or providing anything needed, its a joke to think the program is doing okay, and its a joke to continue this farce.

For the same cost as the  SLS program we could bid launches on all of the aforementioned and build mission hardware for actual missions to somewhere VERY SOON as opposed to nowhere never (2050+). There is no reason to continue this even a month longer other than politics pure and simple.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: LaunchedIn68 on 07/03/2018 07:09 pm
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:

Quote
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.

Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.

Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.

What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.

Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now

WILL Be...???  If this was 2015 I might agree with you, but we are halfway through 2018. 

BFR "entering service"?  ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best.  It will be a major development effort.  Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE!  Have we seen the Raptor yet?  Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?

NG?  I don't expect it to fly before 2025.  Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe.  BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet.  We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.

Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022.  Why?  Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline?  No pressure.  My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given.  Especially in the timeline mentioned.  Anything can happen.  If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: envy887 on 07/03/2018 07:56 pm
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:

Quote
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.

Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.

Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.

What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.

Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now

WILL Be...???  If this was 2015 I might agree with you, but we are halfway through 2018. 

BFR "entering service"?  ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best.  It will be a major development effort.  Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE!  Have we seen the Raptor yet?  Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?

NG?  I don't expect it to fly before 2025.  Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe.  BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet.  We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.

Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022.  Why?  Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline?  No pressure.  My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given.  Especially in the timeline mentioned.  Anything can happen.  If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.

SLS Block 1B is not further along than any of those. The SLS that will fly in 2020 (more likely 2021) will only slightly more capable than Falcon Heavy and will have only a slightly larger fairing. The EUS and 8 meter and 10 meter fairings needed to complete Block 1B (and often cited as the reasons to continue developing SLS) are not yet fully designed, never mind built or tested, and won't be ready to fly before 2024.

Vulcan and New Glenn appear on track for 2020 debuts, although ACES in unlikely to fly before Block 1B. The engine development status is not particularly indicative of time to first launch, since structures and facilities, and not the engines, appear to be more often the critical path. And FH isn't a particularly flattering comparison, as its development started at the same time as SLS, but it flew at least 2 years earlier despite several major redesigns. BFR will undoubtedly have similar major redesigns, but like F9 (and unlike FH) the time-consuming ones will probably happen after the first orbital flights.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: meberbs on 07/03/2018 07:59 pm
...in 2020-2022...

ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
ACES hopefully will be in serious development by then, but today they are just at the concept stage, and everything I have heard indicates they are unlikely to start moving past that point until Vulcan/Centuar V is on the pad. (Problem is their parent companies rather than current leadership from what I can tell.)
Raptor upper stage would not exist unless problems happen with BFR. The Air Force contract is just about the engine, and only needs the "raptor upper stage" as a possibility, not an intended future.

BFR "entering service"?  ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best.  It will be a major development effort.  Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE!  Have we seen the Raptor yet?  Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?
How many times FH has flown so far has a lot to do with how much F9 capability increases have limited the need for FH for current missions. It hasn't even been 10 years since the first successful Falcon 1 launch, so saying BFR won't launch until 2028 is not consistent with how quickly Falcon Heavy was developed. BFR today is further along than FH in 2008. Besides, FH was basically a back burner program needed "eventually." BFR will be the majority of all SpaceX R&D going forward, with a priority of ASAP.

We have seen Raptor, go look up the video. They are still in the process of up-sizing it, but just like Merlin, it will be upgraded throughout its life. The first flight version will not be run at the eventual 100% level.

NG?  I don't expect it to fly before 2025.  Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe.  BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet.  We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.
This statement doesn't even make sense. BE-4 is on the test stand now. A "cluster of BE-4s" would be a rocket on the pad. (no McGregor-like site for Blue, they will static fire at their pad only) From that point, something would have to explode for the launch to not be within 1 year.

Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022.  Why?  Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline?  No pressure.  My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given.  Especially in the timeline mentioned.  Anything can happen.  If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.
You just were making up random delays for all of those other rockets. SLS has a history of consistently being delayed, and honestly I will be somewhat surprised if first launch is before 2022 at this point. Probably 2 years between first and second launch (and the second launch would be the first non-test payload). SLS is not a given either, and is the worst performance for its cost out of any of them. All of the other projects discussed are moving forward with plans that have them leapfrog past SLS within 1-2 years.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/04/2018 05:00 am
For the present and near future this right here is all anyone really needs to understand:

Quote
Getting back to the issues of the SLS development program.

Over the last year the best possible launch date has moved (slipped) 4 months over a period of time of 12 months. That is a slip rate of 1 month per quarter of development. The current best possible launch date in NASA's schedule (no schedule pad) is now Apr 2020. That is 21 months from now or 7 quarters. To calculate the possible schedule pad needed at this current slip rate you also have to contend with a compounding factor. As the best possible moves out more time is added and as more time to launch then the slip factor is applied to that also. This then gives a needed schedule pad of 10 months between the current best possible launch date of Apr 2020 and the high likelihood date of +10 months of Feb 2021.

Here is the rub. By the time this thing makes it's first flight, which will be un-manned and in-capable of doing an actual mission thanks to the program's own ridiculous timeline and requirements, it will be 'too late'.

What flies in 2020-2022 will not be an operational vehicle or "The real" SLS, it will be a one or at most a two off vehicle.

Meanwhile at the same time:
New Glenn will either be in service or nearing service
Vulcan will most likely be beginning service
ACES will be in service
FH block 5 will be in service with a USAF option for a raptor upper stage, unlikely though actual utilization may be.
BFR will be either close to service or entering service depending on technical challenges and/or any re-designs due things discovered in the test campaign. The test campaign is underway right now with the first BFS test vehicle either already under construction or due to start shortly.
The raptor engine exists right now, though scaling remains a mystery as details are tightly held in house at this time.
BE-4 is under going it's flight test validation program right now

WILL Be...???  If this was 2015 I might agree with you, but we are halfway through 2018. 

BFR "entering service"?  ??? Don't expect it till 2028 or 2030 at best.  It will be a major development effort.  Look how long we waited for FH, and it has flown ONCE!  Have we seen the Raptor yet?  Is it being run on the test stands at 100% yet?

NG?  I don't expect it to fly before 2025.  Maybe 2022 for some test flights..maybe.  BE4 hasn't been run at full throttle yet.  We'll see it on the test stands in 2020 I think, clustered and being run at 100%+.

Maybe Vulcan and BE4 in 2022.  Why?  Aren't there sufficient RD-180's , AV and DIVH in the pipeline?  No pressure.  My point is none of the things you mentioned are a given.  Especially in the timeline mentioned.  Anything can happen.  If anything, SLS is further along than any of the items you mentioned.

1. No there are not sufficient RD-180s. See Russia Sanctions and magnitsky act fallout circa 2013.
2. You are totally making up numbers.

You do realize flight hardware already exists for 98% of what I listed right? The other 2% is based on existing technology, there is no major breakthroughs required to build any of it.

This post doesn't warrant any further response. The amount of pro-SLS astroturfing is becoming abhorrent. This is not the only place I have been seeing it lately either, it would seem to me someone at Boeing is waging a social media campaign to try and minimize the commercial spaceflight sector (ironic) and play up SLS. This started roughly three months ago right around the time major schedule failures started happening again.

Just a coincidence I am sure.

Maybe what we need to do is start an advocacy campaign via the GOP to call on Mr. Trump to direct Administrator Bridenstine to investigate killing SLS in FY2020 or sooner if possible. Maybe more direct action right now is needed instead of debate.

This CXP style nonsense has to stop, if the contractor (Boeing) and/or the management are this out of control they will find they are going to have a fight on their hands soon. Really hoping someone says full stop on this nonsense before it reaches that point, killing the stick was hard enough.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/04/2018 05:11 am
Quote
ACES hopefully will be in serious development by then, but today they are just at the concept stage, and everything I have heard indicates they are unlikely to start moving past that point until Vulcan/Centuar V is on the pad. (Problem is their parent companies rather than current leadership from what I can tell.)
Raptor upper stage would not exist unless problems happen with BFR. The Air Force contract is just about the engine, and only needs the "raptor upper stage" as a possibility, not an intended future.

There are two major reasons why. ACES could have been built years ago there is, again, no major break-through or real 'development' program needed to build it. ULA could have built it in 2008.

Reason number one. While Atlas V has it's day's number, it behooves ULA to fly out the remaining stock. Same goes for the current version of centaur. There is no reason to run hurry up phasing this out only to wind up with left over LV's at the end, you are better off flying out the program so you don't waste money. The same goes for Delta IV. However, commercial pressure is mounting every year that goes by. It is the reason why a common vehicle family and a new vehicle program were started to begin with, it is ULA's response to this pressure and the inherent problems of getting engines from Russia in an era where Russia is everyone's worst enemy again.

Reason number two is the SLS program. ULA proposed flexible path EELV with ACES prior to, during, and after Aug Com. We know how things turned out. Boeing, which is one half of ULA, has the contracts for SLS, where-as Lockheed has the contracts for Orion. There is no reason, therefore, for ULA to hurry up or rapidly introduce ACES or a new vehicle family+ACES given the fact that they are getting paid for SLS+Orion since that is the current program. They would only be hurting themselves if they sped up IOC and shortened the remaining service life of DIV and Atlas V.

But again, commercial pressure is a reality they are having confront more and more. I expect you will ultimately see Vulcan and ACES sooner rather than later as a result. The alternative would be insolvency and they are not stupid enough to risk that.

You will see these vehicles sooner than you think or you will see a world without SLS and without ULA, which is not likely.
Title: Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/04/2018 04:54 pm
Ok you guys are being boring and wandering. I'm leaving the posts on to show what I mean. See above.

As warned, new thread time and it'll be posts deleted if it continues.

New thread (was needed as this one is a long thread)
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45947.0