Build SLS, Scrap an EELV?

[Lars_J]

AFAIK there has been no official "too many engines" F9 complaint from the DoD. There's been lots of internet speculation, however. But the DoD is not abandoning the Atlas V or Delta IV anytime soon.

[Vahe231991]

AFAIK there has been no official "too many engines" F9 complaint from the DoD. There's been lots of internet speculation, however. But the DoD is not abandoning the Atlas V or Delta IV anytime soon.

Even though this thread is over a decade old, there's a recent news item that may be partly relevant to this thread:
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/science/boeing-sees-space-launch-system-rocket-fit-pentagon-missions-2023-03-08/

Notwithstanding the fact that the Delta II and single-stick Delta IV variant has been retired and just two Delta IV Heavy launches and two Atlas V launches involving military payloads remain, it'd be interesting to see if the SLS could be a viable candidate for launching military payloads under the USAF's National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, given that the Vulcan will fulfill the niche occupied by the Delta IV and Atlas V in terms of launching military payloads and the STS Space Shuttle system launched a few DoD space mission in the 1980s and early 1990s.

[Coastal Ron]

...it'd be interesting to see if the SLS could be a viable candidate for launching military payloads under the USAF's National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, given that the Vulcan will fulfill the niche occupied by the Delta IV and Atlas V in terms of launching military payloads and the STS Space Shuttle system launched a few DoD space mission in the 1980s and early 1990s.

You do remember what the Air Force learned from the NASA Shuttle program, right? Not to use NASA launch systems, because NASA was not dependable enough as a launch provider. That decision was made after the 1986 Challenger accident, which resulted in a 32 month Shuttle launch hiatus. Our nation can't wait that long for critical national security payloads to be launched.

The SLS is not going to be significantly safer than the Shuttle, and will never launch enough to be a predictable launch provider.

The Boeing SLS offer is more political than real... 

[ar1978]

...it'd be interesting to see if the SLS could be a viable candidate for launching military payloads under the USAF's National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, given that the Vulcan will fulfill the niche occupied by the Delta IV and Atlas V in terms of launching military payloads and the STS Space Shuttle system launched a few DoD space mission in the 1980s and early 1990s.

You do remember what the Air Force learned from the NASA Shuttle program, right? Not to use NASA launch systems, because NASA was not dependable enough as a launch provider. That decision was made after the 1986 Challenger accident, which resulted in a 32 month Shuttle launch hiatus. Our nation can't wait that long for critical national security payloads to be launched.

The SLS is not going to be significantly safer than the Shuttle, and will never launch enough to be a predictable launch provider.

The Boeing SLS offer is more political than real... 

Isn’t the Vulcan Centaur specifically designed for national security payloads to geosynchronous orbits? And also owned by Boeing and Lockheed since they are the two companies that make up ULA?

I saw the headline too and am scratching my head and I guess you are right that the Boeing SLS offer is more political than real. I don’t think the military is going to spend 4 billion or whatever deal Boeing comes up with to launch a payload

[Vahe231991]

...it'd be interesting to see if the SLS could be a viable candidate for launching military payloads under the USAF's National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, given that the Vulcan will fulfill the niche occupied by the Delta IV and Atlas V in terms of launching military payloads and the STS Space Shuttle system launched a few DoD space mission in the 1980s and early 1990s.

You do remember what the Air Force learned from the NASA Shuttle program, right? Not to use NASA launch systems, because NASA was not dependable enough as a launch provider. That decision was made after the 1986 Challenger accident, which resulted in a 32 month Shuttle launch hiatus. Our nation can't wait that long for critical national security payloads to be launched.

The SLS is not going to be significantly safer than the Shuttle, and will never launch enough to be a predictable launch provider.

The Boeing SLS offer is more political than real... 

Isn’t the Vulcan Centaur specifically designed for national security payloads to geosynchronous orbits? And also owned by Boeing and Lockheed since they are the two companies that make up ULA?

I saw the headline too and am scratching my head and I guess you are right that the Boeing SLS offer is more political than real. I don’t think the military is going to spend 4 billion or whatever deal Boeing comes up with to launch a payload

The SLS isn't exclusively built by Boeing, the components for the SLS are made by not just Boeing but also Northrop Grumman (the ICPS is manufactured by ULA). The Deep Space Transport LLC venture has been formed by Boeing and Northrop Grumman to handle production of the SLS after the Artemis 2, 3, and 4 missions are conducted, since the Exploration Upper Stage for the SLS Block 1B will be an exclusively Boeing-manufactured product.

[jadebenn]

I saw the headline too and am scratching my head and I guess you are right that the Boeing SLS offer is more political than real. I don’t think the military is going to spend 4 billion or whatever deal Boeing comes up with to launch a payload

The money they're spending (out of pocket) on outfitting VAB high bay 2 to hold SLS cores is very real, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the potential motives behind wanting to have a surplus of two or so cores on-site at KSC at all times, especially given the lead times on SLS core production.

Say it's stupid all you want but a lot of the recent news in regards to SLS production optimization and the formation of DST to run SLS operations makes sense if you just take what Boeing is saying at face value. And in addition with the rumors of a sale of ULA... it makes you wonder, don't you think?

[Redclaws]

I saw the headline too and am scratching my head and I guess you are right that the Boeing SLS offer is more political than real. I don’t think the military is going to spend 4 billion or whatever deal Boeing comes up with to launch a payload

The money they're spending (out of pocket) on outfitting VAB high bay 2 to hold SLS cores is very real, and I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the potential motives behind wanting to have a surplus of two or so cores on-site at KSC at all times, especially given the lead times on SLS core production.

Say it's stupid all you want but a lot of the recent news in regards to SLS production optimization and the formation of DST to run SLS operations makes sense if you just take what Boeing is saying at face value.

Yes, if you take as a given the sort of insane cost premises of the whole thing, these modulations of that world make sense.  If you take it as a given that we must have a $$$$ billion launch system, then, yeah, these adjustments make sense.

[Jim]

Notwithstanding the fact that the Delta II and single-stick Delta IV variant has been retired and just two Delta IV Heavy launches and two Atlas V launches involving military payloads remain,

This has nothing to do with the question.

it'd be interesting to see if the SLS could be a viable candidate for launching military payloads under the USAF's National Security Space Launch Phase 3 contract, given that the Vulcan will fulfill the niche occupied by the Delta IV and Atlas V in terms of launching military payloads and the STS Space Shuttle system launched a few DoD space mission in the 1980s and early 1990s.

NO, SLS is not viable.

[jadebenn]

Yes, if you take as a given the sort of insane cost premises of the whole thing, these modulations of that world make sense.  If you take it as a given that we must have a $$$$ billion launch system, then, yeah, these adjustments make sense.

Oh, for pete's sake. What I mean is that they are taking actions consistent with what they're saying. Is that so hard to believe? They can be wrong and still do what they're saying they'll do. Because right now, it's not a question of whether they're right, it's a question of whether they believe it. And there seems to be a lot of evidence that they're actually building excess capacity to try and sell SLS under the DST aegis on the launch market.

Consider this: Wouldn't Boeing want to sell their share of ULA if they intended DST to compete with them on NSSL contracts? Now, it's not confirmed that anyone is selling their shares of ULA, nor that is indeed what is happening... but considering the rumors, perhaps it's worth a thought? The timing would certainly seem to work.

[VSECOTSPE]

A national security payload on SLS only make sense if there’s a big honkin NRO payload that can’t go on other launchers and then only if there was a competition lane in the coming procurement set aside for that big honkin NRO payload.  There’s no evidence of said payload in the procurement drafts, there’s certainly no separate lane for it, and there’s absolutely no way SLS could fulfill the other requirements in the two existing competition lanes on launch cadence alone, forget cost.

SLS would have to be partnered with at least one other launcher to not be laughed out of competing in one of the lanes.  Until there’s some news of such a partnership or proposal, this has zero credibility.  Even then, it’s hard to see it making sense.  Why should USAF carry SLS costs instead of just putting all the payloads on the other launcher in the proposal?

I think someone at Boeing is running open loop on this, and either senior management will pay attention and put a stop to it or it will just go nowhere when the competition comes around.

[jadebenn]

...They're running an "open loop" on the millions they just spent on High Bay 2? I don't have the highest opinion of Boeing management, but I'd think that'd be a bit hard to sneak by.

He noted that Boeing took the results of this study and their recommendations to NASA and their other stakeholders earlier in the year. “We had proposed it to NASA over the summertime [and] said this is really the only way we can get to a two-plus a year [production] rate,” Shannon said.

“We asked to get the ability to get into High Bay 2, so Boeing said we’ll take on the cost of doing the mods to the high bay. The SSPF we really didn’t have to do mods to, but we showed NASA that this is a better way to reduce the cost of the vehicle by reducing production time significantly. We’re in a mode of trying to save costs now that we understand how to produce the vehicle, so NASA was all on board with doing that.”

Again: Not a question of whether you personally think it makes sense. The question is whether they're doing it.

We also know from the attendees of the high bay 1 lease industry day (Boeing and Blue Origin staff) that it's highly likely they submitted a bid on that too. Why? I don't know. Did they win? I don't know. But doesn't this seem to start painting a picture? Form Deep Space Transport to manage and market future SLS missions, build up SLS production capacity, relocate some tasks to KSC, add the ability to stockpile to compensate for low production cadence, express interest in leasing another VAB high bay...

...And now we're hearing rumors someone wants out of ULA.

[VSECOTSPE]

...They're running an "open loop" on the millions they just spent on High Bay 2?

Happens all the time in big organizations.  The original decision was made with an eye to multiple customers and payloads, and we’ve seen those disappear.  National security was the remaining TBD, but how that procurement is shaking out, there’s no way SLS can satisfy the requirements for either competition lane based on launch cadence alone.  Maybe someone is running open loop or maybe Boeing senior hasn’t caught up or maybe they’re going to do once last Hail Mary lobbying effort to try to change USAF’s lane definitions.  But once Boeing senior is paying attention and dealing with likelihoods and reality, they’ll have every reason to pull the plug.  Why spend on a capability for launches that you can’t compete for?

He noted that Boeing took the results of this study and their recommendations to NASA and their other stakeholders earlier in the year. “We had proposed it to NASA over the summertime [and] said this is really the only way we can get to a two-plus a year [production] rate,” Shannon said.

“We asked to get the ability to get into High Bay 2, so Boeing said we’ll take on the cost of doing the mods to the high bay. The SSPF we really didn’t have to do mods to, but we showed NASA that this is a better way to reduce the cost of the vehicle by reducing production time significantly. We’re in a mode of trying to save costs now that we understand how to produce the vehicle, so NASA was all on board with doing that.”

Two points:

NASA, NASA, NASA... National security payloads are a USAF responsibility, not NASA.

John Shannon used to publicly extoll the flight safety advantages of sidemount proposals and berated inline proposals like SLS on the same grounds.  Take everything he says with a large grain of salt.

Again: Not a question of whether you personally think it makes sense. The question is whether they're doing it.

The question is whether SLS could compete in one of the lanes in the upcoming national security launch procurement.  It can’t.  The only way it could is with a partner, and there’s no evidence of such a partnership.  And even then, the probability that the costs of a proposal for maintaining two, separate launch infrastructures and workforces could compete on cost against one launch infrastructure and workforce approaches nil.  And then there’s the especially high costs of SLS if it’s part of such a partnered proposal.  And then there’s the issue of what happened to USAF payloads after Challenger, and USAF’s memory of that.

Read into the tea leaves whatever you want, but it’s not gonna happen.

[Coastal Ron]

...They're running an "open loop" on the millions they just spent on High Bay 2? I don't have the highest opinion of Boeing management, but I'd think that'd be a bit hard to sneak by.

He noted that Boeing took the results of this study and their recommendations to NASA and their other stakeholders earlier in the year. “We had proposed it to NASA over the summertime [and] said this is really the only way we can get to a two-plus a year [production] rate,” Shannon said...

The latest NASA budget request shows that NASA is now planning for Artemis IV in 2028, a slip from 2027. And it would be no surprise if both Artemis II and III are delayed, for various reasons that may or may not be related to the SLS.

So here we have a NASA contractor pushing for NASA to launch more often, but if anything NASA is having to stretch out its launch schedules. Boeing can see where this is going, which is that NASA will either have to pile up completed SLS stages (which Boeing is hoping will be the case, hence the high bay expansion), or NASA will tell Boeing and the other SLS contractors to significantly slow down their build rate.

From a manufacturing standpoint it is never a good idea to store expensive and complicated assemblies for years. And from a taxpayer standpoint, it would look like NASA is getting a head start on the next additions to their rocket garden...