Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/20/2018 03:11 amTo 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, 10https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22048.0
To narrow the search: could you tell me the thread name?
I lost that huge, 700 page document in a massive hard drive crash I had three years ago.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/19/2018 12:49 amI 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 for back-up purposes (to an external NAS) for years.
Quote from: kraisee on 04/19/2018 11:28 pmIf 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?
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.
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
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?
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 04/21/2018 12:27 pmI'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...
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.
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....
Agreed. If Congress had funded an upper stage from day one, there wouldn't be a need for a lot of this foolishness.
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.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 04/21/2018 04:48 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 04/21/2018 12:27 pmI'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'.
Quote from: AncientU on 04/21/2018 05:14 pmQuote from: Rocket Science on 04/21/2018 04:48 pmQuote from: MATTBLAK on 04/21/2018 12:27 pmI'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?
SLS is a monster of there own creation and that's why they aren't going after it...