So the FY 2018 budget for the US has in the NASA section $350mn for a second Mobile Launcher. Also the bill passed the house and is likely to pass the Senate and go to the president as written in the next few days. What does this mean for launch cadence and the existing ML?
Congress is giving NASA more money than it requested to build a second launch platformWhat the SLS wants, the SLS getsBy Loren Grush on March 23, 2018 4:55 pmToday, Trump signed into law a massive $1.3 trillion spending bill that will fund the federal government through the rest of fiscal year 2018, and the deal is quite generous to NASA. Practically all of NASA’s programs get a funding boost, and the space agency even gets money that it didn’t ask for — notably, the funds needed to build a second launch platform for its next big rocket.
Since the current ML has cost more than a half billion, why do they think they can do a second a 1/3 of a billion?
Quote from: Adam W on 03/22/2018 06:23 pmSo the FY 2018 budget for the US has in the NASA section $350mn for a second Mobile Launcher. Also the bill passed the house and is likely to pass the Senate and go to the president as written in the next few days. What does this mean for launch cadence and the existing ML?Loren Grush has written this up, including likely reasons why this unrequested funding was included and potential launch date impactQuoteCongress is giving NASA more money than it requested to build a second launch platformWhat the SLS wants, the SLS getsBy Loren Grush on March 23, 2018 4:55 pmToday, Trump signed into law a massive $1.3 trillion spending bill that will fund the federal government through the rest of fiscal year 2018, and the deal is quite generous to NASA. Practically all of NASA’s programs get a funding boost, and the space agency even gets money that it didn’t ask for — notably, the funds needed to build a second launch platform for its next big rocket.https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2018/3/23/17153408/nasa-omnibus-bill-federal-budget-second-mobile-launcher
Does this mean the 2nd launcher is at least getting funded now? Constructed and made reality another story of course, but at least 'officially' funded?
Quote from: Kansan52 on 03/23/2018 10:06 pmSince the current ML has cost more than a half billion, why do they think they can do a second a 1/3 of a billion?They already have the designs and experience from building the first one (Experience meaning knowing what took longer than expected, what problems they got by doing one thing, etc.)
This week in space news, the last of the big swing arm umbilicals is installed on the mobile launcher
Well some people at NASA are going to be very unhappy with the added/forced funding for a 2nd tower. Why? Because the with the “3yr gap to modify tower” excuse out of the way, people will discover that there are other long poles in the schedule that will receive more scrutiny.
Would it be possible/make sense to redo an old Shuttle MLP for SLS, basically reverting it back to a Saturn V-like style? They're just sitting there, and it might save some time and money to start from that blank template.Just asking out of curiosity
Quote from: IanThePineapple on 03/24/2018 01:41 amWould it be possible/make sense to redo an old Shuttle MLP for SLS, basically reverting it back to a Saturn V-like style? They're just sitting there, and it might save some time and money to start from that blank template.Just asking out of curiosityThat's what the current Ares/SLS tower is (it was built on MLP-1), and almost certainly another MLP would be used for the base. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question.
A way to reduce that gap is to fly crew on another Block I. That will cost an additional $150M to crew rate the iCPS. I think that would be much safer than crew on the first flight of Block IB. The first flight of Block IB can then be uncrewed.
Quote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/24/2018 07:33 amA way to reduce that gap is to fly crew on another Block I. That will cost an additional $150M to crew rate the iCPS. I think that would be much safer than crew on the first flight of Block IB. The first flight of Block IB can then be uncrewed.What does this second launcher mean in the long term? Does block 1 become the sole launch vehicle of manned missions, while block 1B/2 are dedicated to cargo. A simplified launcher without a crew access arm would be cheaper, offsetting the cost of manrating ICPS. Of course things have changed - the delta IV stage ICPS is built off is going away, and Centaur V planned for Vulcan will need to be man rated from the start. Dimensionally the 2 stages should be pretty close. Could a solution be found there?
Quote from: GWH on 03/27/2018 03:17 pmQuote from: Steven Pietrobon on 03/24/2018 07:33 amA way to reduce that gap is to fly crew on another Block I. That will cost an additional $150M to crew rate the iCPS. I think that would be much safer than crew on the first flight of Block IB. The first flight of Block IB can then be uncrewed.What does this second launcher mean in the long term? Does block 1 become the sole launch vehicle of manned missions, while block 1B/2 are dedicated to cargo. A simplified launcher without a crew access arm would be cheaper, offsetting the cost of manrating ICPS. Of course things have changed - the delta IV stage ICPS is built off is going away, and Centaur V planned for Vulcan will need to be man rated from the start. Dimensionally the 2 stages should be pretty close. Could a solution be found there?They could build a bunch of ICPS stages before the assembly lines shut down, like what was done with the Saturn IB.
Is it possible MLS-1 will be converted after EM-1 in addition to constructing MLS-2 for EM-2, with the program eventually having two Block 1B Mobile Launch Systems available?