This is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?!
I thought there was going to be two operational Crawlers? I know one was extensively upgraded and repaired over the last couple of years. I also know that the old Ares 1 tower is being modified and there's been talk of building another that will be full 'SLS Block 1B' compatible.
I suspect that the only saving grace for the SLS is that the human transport version of the BFR will probably take a lot longer than a few years...Even if a cargo version is never really used I suspect using the SLS to launch humans into space will be its main justification, even if that doesn't happen until 2023.
Quote from: Jason Davies on 05/15/2018 02:39 amQuote from: cwr on 05/15/2018 12:49 amQuote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,it does not expand.I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).Thanks, I can read that.CarlPerfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.FH was five years late and lotsa people here repeatedly asked the question when FH would finally launch.But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule. Which is real bad for a government program gobbling up over a billion dollars PER YEAR. For comparison: FH was done on a mere $500 million IN TOTAL.
Quote from: cwr on 05/15/2018 12:49 amQuote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,it does not expand.I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).Thanks, I can read that.CarlPerfectly readable in the article. Either you are using a small phone or you need new glasses Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.
Quote from: AnalogMan on 05/14/2018 11:53 pmQuote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,it does not expand.I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).Thanks, I can read that.Carl
Quote from: cwr on 05/14/2018 10:41 pmWhen I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,it does not expand.I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].Here's a copy of the original (but without the magnified insert).
When I click on "EM-1 INTEGRATED MISSION MILESTONE SUMMARY" in this article,it does not expand.I don't know if the original image was too low a resolution or if something is missing from theincorporation of the image. If its easy to fix, that would be appreciated or supplying the URL for a readable versionof the image would be appreciated [in which case adding that URL to the article might be a good idea].
Priority should be placed on the core elements withthe goal for operational capability for the core elements notlater than December 31, 2016.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 05/14/2018 10:07 pmThis is bordering on tragic. What can be done about this?! Build an additional mobile launcher!
adding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 05/15/2018 11:49 amI thought there was going to be two operational Crawlers? I know one was extensively upgraded and repaired over the last couple of years. I also know that the old Ares 1 tower is being modified and there's been talk of building another that will be full 'SLS Block 1B' compatible.Sorry, didn't intend to sidetrack this discussion -- just thought it bazaar that SLS/Orion would be looking to double its launch capability when they are having such a difficult time establishing initial operational capability. It seems obvious to anyone who has managed a project that adding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably.
Interesting article. We all knew 2020 was the new date, but mid-2020 and may slip further isn't great. Still, Falcon Heavy slipped a few years and no one said a word.
The critical path seems to be through Michoud and Stennis, which are unrelated to any of those things.
Quote from: AncientU on 05/15/2018 01:00 pmadding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. All separate and unrelated workforces.There is no need to "human rate" Block 1 SLS, it was designed that way.
1. Not according to the people writing SLS software -- the software was NOT written such that it could be used for crewed flight. 2. The iCPS was also NOT supposed to get crew qualified... But you are free to be of the opinion that all of this is business as usual for NASA, and thus fine.
Quote from: woods170 on 05/15/2018 07:26 amBut, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule.That fact and the relative lack of noise in Washington about the slips, indeed consistently increased funding over what's requested year-on-year, makes clear that politically the dates don't matter, yet. I'm pretty sure EM-1 will fly, but the delays mean the launch landscape with SpaceX and Blue Origin is likely to be very different before EM-2 and that's when I guess the politics will change.
But, to get back to SLS: first launch was mandated, by law, to be no later than December 2016. With the recent sliding of the CS schedule there is a very real chance that the new NET launch date for EM-1 will be in December 2020. That is four years behind schedule.
Quote from: Jim on 05/15/2018 04:22 pmQuote from: AncientU on 05/15/2018 01:00 pmadding ML-2, the EUS design/build, additional iCPS stages, human rating iCPS, human rating Block 1 SLS, and building multiple copies of Block 1 to the already struggling workforce will slow the already-anemic progress considerably. All separate and unrelated workforces.There is no need to "human rate" Block 1 SLS, it was designed that way.Not according to the people writing SLS software -- the software was NOT written such that it could be used for crewed flight. The iCPS was also NOT supposed to get crew qualified... NASA specifically decided the $150M needed to qualify it wasn't worth it when they decided that SLS Block 1 would only fly once, and that it would NOT fly crew. (But like everything in this program, that decision subsequently was changed.) These are just a couple of the requirements shoved downstream 'to save money' in this never ending saga of mis-management.But you are free to be of the opinion that all of this is business as usual for NASA, and thus fine.
Please do not bring SpaceX into this discussion. That includes FH, F9, BFR, BFS, ITS, Dragon 1, Dragon 2, etc.While you're at it, you might also leave out Blue.Thanks. We don't need every thread pointing out the same obvious[1] facts[2]1 - or debating about which facts are obvious and which aren't.2 - or debating about which facts are actually not facts.
So who's actually responsible for SLS?
Quote from: rcoppola on 05/15/2018 09:03 pmSo who's actually responsible for SLS?Brief history:Shuttle blew up a second time, we decided to retire the shuttleWanted to keep going to space so Ares program emergedAres program was a dog so Obama cancelled itThe Senate was up in arms at Ares being cancelled (jobs in the right states and we didn't have alternative heavy rockets)They compromised and made the SLS, like the Ares but a little cheaper