Author Topic: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development  (Read 34300 times)

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #100 on: 10/13/2018 02:42 pm »
There's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet. But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.

Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident. It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.

What did Griffin say?  Do you have a link?

Thanks in advance.

« Last Edit: 10/13/2018 05:38 pm by UltraViolet9 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #101 on: 10/13/2018 04:05 pm »
Thanks ncb1397. I'm surprised by this high number. I'll do a simulation tomorrow to find out what is going on.

SLS is pretty close to the Ariane V architecture

I assume you mean "Ares V", not "Ariane V" as written...  ;)

Considering all the time (years) and money ($Billions) spent on the SLS, and we're still having debates about it's abilities, I'd say using any guesses from Ares V - which was never funded to start - would not provide valid data.

Stick with official numbers that come from NASA on the SLS, it's the only way to have a known baseline.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #102 on: 10/13/2018 10:45 pm »
There's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet. But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.

Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident. It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.

What did Griffin say?  Do you have a link?

Thanks in advance.

Griffin wrote this:

Quote
I must also point out that there have been many instances where proponents of individual missions have downplayed the technical difficulty and risk of their individual mission, or grossly underestimated the cost and effort involved to solve the problems, in order to gain "new start" funds for particular project. Everyone knows that, once started, any given mission is nearly impossible to cancel, so the goal becomes that of getting started, no matter what has to be said or done to accomplish it. I am speaking here not only to industry and scientific investigators, but also to organizations within NASA. This is a matter of integrity for our community. NASA managers, the White House, and Congress have seen this behavior too many times, and the Agency has lost a great deal of credibility over the decades as a result. There was a time - I remember it, and many of you will also - when what "NASA" said could be taken to the bank. Anyone here think it's like that today? Show of hands? ... I didn't think so.

Emphasis mine.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=27239

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #103 on: 10/13/2018 11:04 pm »
Thanks for that excerpt from Griffin's speech. Here's the next paragraph, which is also relevant:

Quote
I have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.

'Nuff said.
« Last Edit: 10/13/2018 11:06 pm by Kabloona »

Offline ncb1397

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3497
  • Liked: 2310
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #104 on: 10/14/2018 03:01 am »

I assume you mean "Ares V", not "Ariane V" as written...  ;)

No, I mean Ariane V. Ariane V ECA has 2 solid rocket boosters with a hydrolox center core and a hydrolox upper stage.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #105 on: 10/14/2018 03:03 am »
There's nothing about the specification that NASA can't meet.

Seemed like there was some question about that, but OK.

Quote
But they failed, at the time they were laying out plans, to give anything resembling a remotely accurate estimate of the cost and time required to meet that specification.

Recent comments by Mike Griffin suggest that not have been an accident.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Congress ever asked for a budget for the SLS or the Orion. And they certainly have not held hearings about the SLS where they reviewed NASA's budget targets.

In fact, last I heard NASA hasn't told Congress how much the SLS would cost to operate, and we in the public certainly don't know either.

Quote
It's certainly a pattern with large NASA projects.

No, the SLS and Orion programs are major exceptions. They did not go through the normal program process, but instead the design and major contractors were mandated by Congress without any bidding process, and no overall budget was ever set. Which is why I say the SLS can never be under-funded or over-budget, because no cost goals were ever established.

Anyone think the NASA OIG report will cause the House or Senate to review the program? I'm not holding my breath...

NASA never provided a total cost estimate, because Congress never demanded one. But NASA did not publicly object to the 2016 deadline, and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline.

The obvious implication was that they expected to hit that schedule with the proposed budget, when realistically they would have needed double the money or even more than that.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #106 on: 10/14/2018 03:05 am »
Thanks for that excerpt from Griffin's speech. Here's the next paragraph, which is also relevant:

Quote
I have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.

'Nuff said.

Yes. To be clear, I'm not bagging Griffin here. He's entirely right on this point.

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #107 on: 10/14/2018 04:09 am »
NASA never provided a total cost estimate, because Congress never demanded one.

Congress told NASA to create the SLS, and if Congress was interested in knowing the total development costs, or what the operational costs would be, then all they have to do is tell NASA to provide the information.

Quote
But NASA did not publicly object to the 2016 deadline...

"NASA" works for the President, and "NASA" does not question Congress.

Quote
...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline.

"NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.

This is "Government 101" type stuff by the way...

Quote
The obvious implication was that they expected to hit that schedule with the proposed budget, when realistically they would have needed double the money or even more than that.

When the "NASA Authorization Act of 2010" was signed, no one, including NASA and Boeing, knew how much it would cost to develop the SLS, nor did they know how long it would take.

And in case it's not painfully obvious, NASA and Boeing STILL don't know how much it will cost or how long. They have a better guess now than they did on October 11, 2010, but every time NASA pushes out SLS flight dates is an indication that they still have an imperfect understanding of the SLS program. You don't have to be a scheduling professional like me to see that...  ;)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39214
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32734
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #108 on: 10/14/2018 06:40 am »
OK, I've done my homework! I get a payload of 89.0 t to 200 km for Block I. If we include the burnout mass of iCPS, the IMLEO is 94.2 t, very close to NASA's 95 t value. Thus, I believe NASA is quoting IMLEO for Block I to LEO, which is also what NASA has been doing for Block IB and II.

So why do we get a high payload? When the core burns out, its at a high velocity of about 7.2 km/s. The upper stage only needs to add another 0.6 km/s, which can do so with low acceleration. The actual delta-V is 0.7 km/s, so we lose 0.1 km/s due to gravity losses. The iCPS only has a dry mass of 3.8 t, compared to 14.5 t for EUS (this is an older value). RL-10B-2 also has slightly better ISP than the EUS engines.

Attached are my simulation results. You can download the software from my SLS site below.

http://www.sworld.com.au/steven/space/sls/

The data I've been using is now about four years old, so if anyone can provide new data on the masses and engine performance of the core, booster, and upper stages, that would be much appreciated! My simulations are only as good as the data they use.

I also want to point out that my simulations always include reserve propellant masses, which is probably equivalent to the Program Manager's Reserve that NASA is using in their performance curves.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2018 06:59 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #109 on: 10/14/2018 12:06 pm »
NASA never provided a total cost estimate, because Congress never demanded one.

Congress told NASA to create the SLS, and if Congress was interested in knowing the total development costs, or what the operational costs would be, then all they have to do is tell NASA to provide the information.

Quote
But NASA did not publicly object to the 2016 deadline...

"NASA" works for the President, and "NASA" does not question Congress.

Quote
...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline.

"NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.

NASA is (supposed to be) the technical authority on how much money and time it takes to build a rocket. The adminstration actually writes the budget, but it should reflect NASA's estimates. Unless the administration is trying to undermine Congress' intent by deliberately underfunding the project.

Congress isn't required to ask for budgetary estimates before (or after) setting a schedule requirement, if they don't care about the cost. In the case of SLS, not only do they not care about the cost, but they don't really care about the schedule either. (which to me strongly indicates that the goal is pork and not a rocket)
« Last Edit: 10/14/2018 12:13 pm by envy887 »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #110 on: 10/14/2018 05:01 pm »
Thanks for that excerpt from Griffin's speech. Here's the next paragraph, which is also relevant:

Quote
I have spent a good portion of my time as Administrator trying to rebuild that credibility with more rigorous technical review and independent cost estimating processes. But, folks, we are in this together. We will not be trusted with more funding to carry out great, new, exciting space missions in the future, human or robotic, if we oversell and underdeliver on our commitments today. Across the board, we must be realistic in our assessments of cost and technical risk if we are to be trusted with funds provided to us by the American taxpayer.

'Nuff said.

Yes. To be clear, I'm not bagging Griffin here. He's entirely right on this point.

Ditto. My cryptic comment was intended to mean that IMO, Griffin neatly summed up the problems behind SLS, needing no other comment from me.
« Last Edit: 10/14/2018 05:03 pm by Kabloona »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8859
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 10198
  • Likes Given: 11927
Re: Navigating the twists and turns steering SLS Development
« Reply #111 on: 10/15/2018 12:25 am »
...and for years has proposed SLS budget requests every year that did not realistically reflect what they needed to hit that deadline.

"NASA" does not propose it's own budget, the President does via the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). NASA personnel provide input, but it's really up to the OMB to decide what goes into the President's budget.

NASA is (supposed to be) the technical authority on how much money and time it takes to build a rocket.

NASA is filled with a lot of smart people, but few today have designed and built a rocket. So no, NASA is not the technical authority for the SLS, Boeing would be. But as the customer NASA would be involved with how much Boeing THINKS it needs, since NASA manages the Boeing contract.

Quote
The adminstration actually writes the budget, but it should reflect NASA's estimates.

Sure it should reflect what NASA wants, but the OMB decides the details of what the Administration requests from Congress.

Quote
Unless the administration is trying to undermine Congress' intent by deliberately underfunding the project.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. By law the President of the United States has to submit a budget request to Congress. By tradition, Congress completely ignores the submitted budget request.

2. So far members of Congress have been willing to provide the SLS will a constant source of funding, which is being done in a "flat budget" profile, not one that is normal for programs of it's size.

Quote
In the case of SLS, not only do they not care about the cost, but they don't really care about the schedule either. (which to me strongly indicates that the goal is pork and not a rocket)

Completely agree!
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1