Quote from: turbopumpfeedback2 on 03/28/2016 01:56 pmWhat will be the steady state SLS flight rate?SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?The SLS lacks payloads. BTW, the shuttle flight rate was much higher in the 90's when it had payloads other than the ISS.
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?
The software won't be ready until fall 2017, instead of this summer as planned, and important capabilities like automatic failure detection, are being deferred.
What will be the steady state SLS flight rate?SLS Block 2 will be 50% more massive than shuttle.Shuttle launched on average about 4 times a year. So SLS should launch at least 2 to 3 times a year.But I have heard on many occasions that SLS will be launched once every two years, or maybe but unlikely once a year.This does not make sense to me. Why would the SLS launch rate be so low?By this trend, next generation rocket system with the same mass as shuttle will be launched once a decade.
The bill provides $19.306 billion for NASA, an increase of more than $280 million from the administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 released in February. However, NASA’s exploration account, which includes SLS and Orion, is increased by nearly $1 billion from the request.That increase includes about $840 million for the SLS, to $2.15 billion, and $180 million for Orion, to $1.3 billion. Exploration ground systems to support SLS and Orion also see a $55 million increase, although research and development activities are cut by more than $80 million.The increase in exploration funding means that most other major NASA accounts suffered cuts from the administration’s request in the bill. Science, aeronautics, space technology and space operations were cut by a combined $660 million from the request. The aeronautics account suffered the largest cut on a percentage basis, seeing its request for $790 million cut by nearly 25 percent.Within the $5.4 billion provided to science, $200 million less than the request, planetary science suffered the largest cut, of more than $160 million. The bill and report did not specify a funding level for a mission to Europa, although it did state it “remains supportive” of such a mission. The bulk of the support for a Europa mission, and the enhanced funding it has received in recent years, has come from the House.
Maybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing.
Quote from: RotoSequence on 04/22/2016 05:23 pmMaybe Congress intends to fund the development of payloads as part of a piecemeal, step by step approach once they've finished building the launch vehicle? They do seem to be in an awfully big hurry to build this rocket and make sure it's absolutely ready and on schedule, even though it has basically nothing to do. It's vexing. My thinking entirely. Has it escaped their notice that a launcher has to actually have something to launch in the first place.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/27/2016 07:40 pmQuote from: CNYMike on 04/27/2016 04:44 pmWho knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome."If"? It already is being built. - Ed KyleA bill is not paid until the cheque has cleared.Block 0 SLS is in a race with Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy. Definitely an "If" until Block 1A with its very heavy payload flies.
Quote from: CNYMike on 04/27/2016 04:44 pmWho knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome."If"? It already is being built. - Ed Kyle
Who knows if it will be built, but the video is awesome.
The six year old in me wonders if I can lick the giant beaters...
Block 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/27/2016 09:41 pmBlock 1.....will lift about 2.5 times more mass to escape velocity than an all-expendable Falcon Heavy and probably 6 times more than an all-recoverable Falcon Heavy.And the actually pertinent questions are:On what timeline?At what price per kg?Why are you so conveniently leaving out MCT?I was an SLS believer at one time too............But then I'm far more of a realist than I am a believer.
SLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/28/2016 05:01 pmSLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete. The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history. And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...
Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun.
I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 04/28/2016 08:59 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 04/28/2016 05:01 pmSLS is being built, with quite a bit of flight hardware already complete. The question has never really been "Can we build an HLV?", and so far Congress has been willing to appropriate the funds to develop such a system and get it ready for flying payloads that require it's unique capabilities.The question has always been whether a government-owned HLV is needed or required at this point in history. And so far the answer to that is not a resounding "Yes", but just a dribble of interest and money from Congress as a whole.Unfortunately a dribble of support won't support the need to launch the SLS at the minimum safe flight cadence of no-less-than every 12 months, so there is a point coming very soon where having a government-owned transportation system but not having enough demand for it's unique capabilities must be reconciled...Is it really 12 months? why not 13 months or 11 months? Seems like a nice round number that happens to coincidentally coincide with the earth's orbit around the sun. If we are going to use calendars as arbitrary technical limitations, why not the Mars year - 687 days? I would like to point out that Apollo Soyuz test project was launched on a Saturn 1B 16 months after the previous Saturn 1B...and didn't explode.