Author Topic: SLS General Discussion Thread 2  (Read 600341 times)

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1600 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.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1601 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)

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1602 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.
« Last Edit: 06/15/2018 07:18 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1603 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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1604 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.
« Last Edit: 06/16/2018 03:47 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1605 on: 06/17/2018 12:15 pm »
You are suggesting 'more bang for the buck'?
How dare you!
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4484
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1330
  • Likes Given: 173
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1606 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.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1607 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...
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8142
  • Liked: 6799
  • Likes Given: 2963
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1608 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?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1609 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.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1610 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... :'(
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1611 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.
« Last Edit: 06/18/2018 01:57 pm by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1612 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. 

Offline RDoc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1613 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.

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1614 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.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2018 02:30 pm by UltraViolet9 »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1615 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.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1616 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.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline johnfwhitesell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 319
  • Liked: 108
  • Likes Given: 198
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1617 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.

Offline spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5180
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2587
  • Likes Given: 2895
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1618 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.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7276
  • Liked: 2781
  • Likes Given: 1461
Re: SLS General Discussion Thread 2
« Reply #1619 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, well beyond the time when it was clearly laughable.
« Last Edit: 06/20/2018 05:14 pm by Proponent »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0