Some disturbing conclusions.Discusshttp://spacenews.com/nasa-safety-panel-worries-about-schedule-pressure-on-exploration-programs/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
That will still leave the problem where to launch such an amount of rockets from. 39B won't be sufficient.
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.
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.
Quote from: Hotblack Desiato on 01/28/2016 10:43 pmSo 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.
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.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 01/28/2016 11:19 pmSo, 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.
Quote from: AncientU on 01/28/2016 12:24 pmSo 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 dichotomy 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.
1 SSPF for cargo processing and preps