Another interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates"
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.
Quote from: yokem55 on 06/21/2017 07:50 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.Apart from being a red-tape nightmare NASA is also well trained in keeping all it's options open. So, it should not come as a surprise to hear that NASA is in fact looking into exactly what you propose: turn EM-1 into an EFT-2 on Delta IV Heavy with the first flight SLS being a Block 1B (thus skipping Block 1).
Quote from: woods170 on 06/21/2017 08:48 pmQuote from: yokem55 on 06/21/2017 07:50 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 06/21/2017 07:45 pmAnother interesting article by Philip Sloss with - of course - cool L2 renders from Nathan Koga https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/06/nasa-letter-congress-em-1-slip/And no, this thread is not for anyone to post "OMG, give it all to SpaceX cause they never slip launch dates" No, but I think a decent case for skipping Block 1 all together could be made at this point while spinning em-1 into an EFT flight on delta or falcon heavy.Apart from being a red-tape nightmare NASA is also well trained in keeping all it's options open. So, it should not come as a surprise to hear that NASA is in fact looking into exactly what you propose: turn EM-1 into an EFT-2 on Delta IV Heavy with the first flight SLS being a Block 1B (thus skipping Block 1).Are they really considering this? Interesting change of events, though I still expect to see Block 1 fly in 2019.
Presumably it would still be used if EFT-2 is assigned to a Delta IV Heavy?
To use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.
Quote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.
The bureaucratic waste and glacial pace of SLS/Orion are really very tiresome. So are NASA's excuses (the tornado ate my homework...) for delays. https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/new-report-nasa-spends-72-cents-of-every-sls-dollar-on-overhead-costs/For goodness sake, a lot of the hardware, at least, is derived from STS and the RS-25 engines are even "flight proven." I get it that modifications are needed to take the RS-25s as an example (inlet pressure and temp, etc.). But after tens of billions of dollars spent and the better part of a decade, is this any way to run a railroad?
If the United States is going to stay a preeminent world power, it’s going to require failure, said Gen. John Hyten, the head of U.S. Strategic Command. “We’ve lost the ability to go fast, test, and fail,” Hyten said. “We tie the hands of our engineers and acquisition folk because we expect every test to work and if it doesn’t work it’s on the front page of the newspaper. We have got to get back to where we accept risk.”
Between 1959 and 1964, with $17 billion in current-year dollars, the military created the Minuteman nuclear missile, delivering “800 missiles deployed in five different bases across America, 160 launch holes, all the missile alert facilities, all the launch control centers, all the command and control,” Hyten said.Now, building the next-generation GBSD is estimated to cost $84 billion for 400 missiles and isn’t set to be completed until 2029.“How did we get to the point where it used to be that we could deliver 800 three-stage solid rocket motors…and now it takes us 12 to 17 years, so in other words, four times as long, four times as expensive, for half the capability?” Hyten said.
Quote from: Proponent on 06/22/2017 08:22 amQuote from: woods170 on 06/22/2017 07:09 amTo use [ICPS] ... would require substantial one-use-only modifications of the ... launch umbilical tower and other GSE systems. That would be both impractible and expensive.I don't disagree, but it's ironic that this is exactly the plan with respect to flying ICPS on SLS.Yeah, a very expensive set of iCPS specific hardware and testing is implemented for a stage that will likely fly just once on SLS (if ever). It was originally supposed to be 2 flights before EM-2 was promoted to EUS.But heck, we have US Congress to thank for this mess. They were the ones ordering a launcher that could grow from 70 mT to LEO to 130 mT to LEO.But with regards to iCPS flying on Delta IV Heavy: it would be worse than just making the one-use-only mods. After the mission is flown the one-use-mods would have to be reversed, given that iCPS is not the baseline upper stage of Delta IV Heavy. So, flying iCPS on a Delta IV Heavy would incurr the cost of changing the ground systems TWICE. IMO it is for this reason that any further missions of Orion on Delta IV Heavy will use the standard DCSS.
...issues with all three programs separately and with integrating hardware and software between them...L2 notes say that currently the areas most critical to the schedule are the SLS Core Stage, Orion’s European Service Module (ESM), construction and activation of GSDO’s Mobile Launcher, and software development across the board.
“We will try our best to launch [in daylight] but there’s only a few months out of the year where you get enough daylight, both in the early morning and late at night — and of course we’re looking at two different coasts here. There’s only about three or four months where we could possibly get both. We’re going to trade one against the other.”
Quote“We will try our best to launch [in daylight] but there’s only a few months out of the year where you get enough daylight, both in the early morning and late at night — and of course we’re looking at two different coasts here. There’s only about three or four months where we could possibly get both. We’re going to trade one against the other.”If SLS/Orion can only launch crewed a few summer months out of each year, then the likelihood that all three program elements can be integrated by summer 2019 for EM-1 is even smaller.I'm guessing that a realistic launch date with 50%-80% confidence for EM-1 is summer 2020 at the earliest.I hope the agency is honest with the Administration about this.
Since we can't go back and unspend money already spent then the cost of NASA going forward is where we should make the changes. It only matters going forward. If no changes are made, then more of the same. Congress should separate out the funds going to the contractors and the funds going to NASA. Cut the latter.