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.
Why isn't NASA working on this instead?
Politicians understand getting caught.
Quote from: GWH on 05/13/2018 03:26 pmQuoteNASA 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
QuoteNASA 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.”
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.”
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...
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.
SLS will continue and likely fly within the next 24 months.
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.
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
Quote from: clongton on 06/14/2018 03:16 pmSLS 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.