Seems like NASA has had a lot of multi-billion dollar overruns for a lot of stuff. Contractors who depend on the government seem to overrun the most and take longer to develop stuff. Boy, if we had to fight WWII again the way our government operates now, we would loose, just on the bureaucracy alone, not just cost.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/02/2018 10:04 pmUsing Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...X-38/CRV was cancelled in 2002, some years before the Columbia accident, ESAS, and Orion. Cause was a multi-billion dollar cost overrun on ISS that NASA delivered to the Bush II White House at the beginning of its term.
Using Orion as a lifeboat for ISS with a crew of 7 proposal is what killed the X-38/CRV program in that function...
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/02/2018 10:11 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 09:32 pmWhy would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.Actually, with two EDO pallets, Shuttle could stay up for a month. It only ever flew with one though...
Quote from: ncb1397 on 01/02/2018 09:32 pmWhy would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?It's a common misconception that the Shuttle was required for transporting expedition crews to the ISS once it was operational. That never was true.The Shuttle was only a secondary way of transporting crews to and from the ISS, but because the Shuttle could only stay in space for two weeks we have always relied on the Soyuz for getting crews to the ISS, and keeping them there.
Why would they design it around ISS if they were just test flights for other missions? Orion was designed to service ISS until it no longer needed to be serviced. Orion was the only U.S. crew transportation vehicle at that time for 2011+, so what else would do it?
QuoteOnce the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.Whether or not Soyuz was required to keep ISS operational, the fact is that it didn't cost half a billion dollars a year for Russia to provide that capability when the U.S. had its own crew transport.
Once the ISS was construction complete there was no more need for Shuttle flights to the ISS, so there was no real need to send the Orion to the ISS - the Soyuz was already handling normal crew rotation tasks. Flying the Orion to the ISS could have been an interesting test flight, but otherwise was not necessary.
So, how tenable our situation is vs. how tenable the situation was with Shuttle depends on what you think about tax dollars being used in that way.
Presumably, they should benefit Americans, not Russians.
And the bill from Russia will easily be in the $4-5 billion range.
And so, like I said before, if it really was about the money, other issues would be just as controversial if not more so than SLS.
The X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost
they still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station
which led to the CEV competition...
NASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles. The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop. NASA then simply buys services like COTS. That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 02:01 amThe X-38/CRV was a bargain at 500M development cost CRV was over $1B at cancellation.The capability for that cost never really made sense, especially in light of less complex and less costly alternatives, like Soyuz, a simple domestic capsule, or a lifeboat.Quotethey still needed a lifeboat to evacuate the station No, the ISS Program still had/has Soyuz.Quotewhich led to the CEV competition...CEV stands for Crew Exploration Vehicle, not ISS rescue or return vehicle.A domestic ISS capability was part and parcel of CEV, but that competition and subsequently Orion were never driven by ISS rescue or transport requirements. Lunar transport requirements largely enveloped ISS needs.
Quote from: AncientU on 01/02/2018 07:59 pmNASA needs to walk away from owning/building/designing/whatever its own launch vehicles. The existing coalition of contractors (without NASA) should be allowed to 'bid' SLS/Orion/LC-39B and rest of GSE against any other launchers that the private sector cares to develop. NASA then simply buys services like COTS. That's the only change that will make a material difference in SLS costs.We also know that this is not going to happen anytime soon. Too many folks in US Congress depend on NASA having it's own launcher to develop and operate.Buying services doesn't "bring home the bacon" nor does it keep certain space-and-defense contractors well-padded.But I digress.
-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...
-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight
and is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan...
Furthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass and no unpressurised upmass.
-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)
-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/03/2018 12:40 pm-X-33/CRV was proposed to budgeted at 500M...Exactly. X-38/CRV was another HSF project with dubious requirements and an unnecessarily complex technical approach facing a large overrun. At cancellation, X-38/CRV was costing almost $1.2B. By the time they fixed the test program, we were probably looking at $2B+.https://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY99/pdfs/ig-99-036r.pdfQuote-You keep promoting Soyuz... Soyuz is "not" a US domestic spacecraft, using it is an "aberration" to US spaceflight ISS in an _international_ program, not a US civil human space flight program. It's not an aberration to rely on a partner for certain capabilities.And practically speaking, NASA can't afford to do everything, at least not the way NASA usually does things. Quoteand is a result of mismanagement and desperation "not" a cogent plan... I agree. NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology. Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce. NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.QuoteFurthermore Soyuz has little pressurized up/downmass and no unpressurised upmass.This confuses emergency crew return with ISS cargo transport needs.Quote-CEV ... (The X-38/CRV could not be utilized in that role)Which is exactly my point. CRV cancellation had nothing to do with CEV.Quote-Separating cargo from crew led to COTS post Columbia...It didn't. I was the starting COTS program executive. The history goes back pre-Columbia but that's a different thread.
I agree. NASA should have had a simple domestic capsule or lifeboat from the get-go driven by limited requirements and built from proven technology. Instead, JSC adopted edge requirements, an unproven aeroshape, and new a terminal landing technique to occupy its workforce. NASA never needed an experimental vehicle or an internal field center development to procure something as straightforward as emergency crew return.
The X-38 was under Goldin at 500M
CRV was the orbital test vehicle which was cancelled just as it was being readied for it's orbital debut by the "bean counter" O'keefe,
penny wise and pound foolish...
Give it a rest ISS, is not MIR...
Originally:Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/02/2018 10:04 pmOriginally:Orion on Ares-1 was to service ISS originally with crew of 7.Orion on Ares-V was for Lunar Missions with crew of 4.NASA never planned to launch Orion on Ares-V, aka CaLV (Cargo Launch Vehicle). The CxP architecture required Orion to launch on an Ares-I CLV (Crew Launch Vehicle). All CxP missions beyond LEO would have required at least two launches: one (or more) Ares-V launches for the EDS (Earth Departure Stage) and cargo (e.g. Altair), and one Ares-I launch with Orion and the crew.Also, Commercial Crew definitely replaced Orion to ISS for crew rotation. Regardless of when ISS would or would not have been splashed.Cheers!
What was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011? I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.
I also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.
SEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue thedevelopment of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purposecrew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.
A Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations. Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.
Quote from: Hog on 01/03/2018 03:33 pmWhat was that price per seat on Soyuz just after STS was retired, as in within days after Atlantis landed way back in July, 2011? I've seen $66 million quoted, but I remember Bolden attempting to dispel that number.Here is a chart from a 2016 Business Insider article:QuoteI also remember that congressional "rule/law" stating that SLS was to be capable of ISS missions.Here is what the original Senate Bill S. 3729 stated:QuoteSEC. 303. MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.(a) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall continue thedevelopment of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall continue to advance development of the human safety features, designs, and systems in the Orion project.(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.(b) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—The multi-purposecrew vehicle developed pursuant to subsection (a) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:(1) The capability to serve as the primary crew vehicle for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.(2) The capability to conduct regular in-space operations, such as rendezvous, docking, and extra-vehicular activities, in conjunction with payloads delivered by the Space Launch System developed pursuant to section 302, or other vehicles, in preparation for missions beyond low-Earth orbit or servicing of assets described in section 804, or other assets in cis-lunar space.(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform that function.(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele- ments, and commercial operations.QuoteA Shuttle launch every 3 weeks would have provided coverage for crew rotations. Just imagine one Orbiter Vehicle always docked with ISS with 2 being docked for a few hours/days.I don't think the Shuttle fleet was capable of doing that safely and consistently.
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change? Is it my congressman or my senator?<Rant mode on>This is not a joke post. I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped. I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong. Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem. This program is eating up a ridiculous amount of NASA's budget, and to me, doesn't seem to be accomplishing much other than providing jobs. Yes, maybe that's what congress wants, but I personally don't sit easy knowing that. I've always been a fan of SLS, but I swear, if this program keeps delaying it's going to turn me into a SpaceX amazing people.</Rant mode off>
Allright, who do I write a letter to if I want to if I want to get something about this program to change? Is it my congressman or my senator?<Rant mode on>This is not a joke post. I've been following this program since I was a young high schooler 7 years ago, and I've watched as the date slipped and slipped and slipped. I've followed on L2 and seen the updates and gotten hyped to watch this rocket fly, only to then see things start to go wrong. Now I'm seeing more and more problems that require more and more money to fix. If they had been addressed at the beginning (ML issues), or been given proper funding (ESM,Software?, also ML) wouldn't be a problem...</Rant mode off>
Quote from: spacenut on 01/02/2018 02:34 pmSo, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?Sorry for the delay. I just ran across this question. I try to avoid this thread these days.In my mind, the key is ultimately going to be the cost of propulsion, especially of the RS-25 core stage engines. They will have to build new engines at some point. Cost control will be paramount. I wish this work could be opened for truely competitive bidding.EUS and its engines will also be a key cost driver. The engines and other systems must be common with at least one other commercial stage or cost control will be impossible.But the real cost of SLS/Orion that needs to see some control is for Orion. That barter exchange for Service Module will shift to real money (Euros) in the future (there are only so many AJ-10s, and they don't make them anymore), and does anyone see evidence of cost-control as a consideration in the design of the CM? - Ed Kyle
So, what can be done to improve SLS and make it work at a lower cost? Fly-back liquid boosters?, liquid boosters? A good second stage?