Quote from: TaurusLittrow on 04/23/2018 08:33 pmThree years to human rate ICPS and make Orion suitable for astronauts!?Where does that information come from?Quote from: butters on 04/24/2018 12:15 amIt's possible to interpret the prolonged delay of EUS as evidence that perhaps the software issues are predominantly related to EUS, and that the software for the rest of SLS is more mature because "heritage hardware."EUS is still being designed. Any software issues are more likely due to elements that are being built now.For those interested, Block I payload to Europa is only 2.9 t, compared to 8.1 t for Block IB. I estimate FH expendable payload for Europa (for 6,783 m/s delta-V from LEO) to be 6.5 t!
Three years to human rate ICPS and make Orion suitable for astronauts!?
It's possible to interpret the prolonged delay of EUS as evidence that perhaps the software issues are predominantly related to EUS, and that the software for the rest of SLS is more mature because "heritage hardware."
Quote from: AncientU on 04/23/2018 09:10 pmQuote from: whitelancer64 on 04/23/2018 08:36 pmQuote from: butters on 04/23/2018 08:03 pmIs ICPS human-rating going to happen or not?It will probably have to be.As will the SLS software.Last report wasn't optimistic that was even possible without starting over.That's an interesting topic because every time I've seen the SLS software problems story, it was never clear whether the software problems relate to SLS core or EUS or ICPS or the entire system. It's possible to interpret the prolonged delay of EUS as evidence that perhaps the software issues are predominantly related to EUS, and that the software for the rest of SLS is more mature because "heritage hardware." On the other hand, we also know that "heritage" only goes so far when we're talking about SLS. So I guess we'll have to wait for more breadcrumbs before we know how bad the software issues are and whether they impact Block I (or the human-rating thereof).
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 04/23/2018 08:36 pmQuote from: butters on 04/23/2018 08:03 pmIs ICPS human-rating going to happen or not?It will probably have to be.As will the SLS software.Last report wasn't optimistic that was even possible without starting over.
Quote from: butters on 04/23/2018 08:03 pmIs ICPS human-rating going to happen or not?It will probably have to be.
Is ICPS human-rating going to happen or not?
Kudos for a nice article that clarifies some of the key decision points, timelines, and options. What I find incomprehensible, and indefensible, if not surprising, is the fact that "due to Orion readiness, it is unlikely both missions [EM-1 and -2] will close the previous multi-year gap by any notable margin."Three years to human rate ICPS and make Orion suitable for astronauts!? Oh, how things have changed since the flights of Apollo IV and VIII. Somewhere, Gilruth, Low, Kraft, and von Braun are shaking their heads.
Quote from: TaurusLittrow on 04/23/2018 08:33 pmKudos for a nice article that clarifies some of the key decision points, timelines, and options. What I find incomprehensible, and indefensible, if not surprising, is the fact that "due to Orion readiness, it is unlikely both missions [EM-1 and -2] will close the previous multi-year gap by any notable margin."Three years to human rate ICPS and make Orion suitable for astronauts!? Oh, how things have changed since the flights of Apollo IV and VIII. Somewhere, Gilruth, Low, Kraft, and von Braun are shaking their heads. Just because something appears in a NASASpaceflight article doesn't mean it is a fact. See the contention that an expendable Falcon Heavy will cost essentially the same cost that NASA pays for a Falcon 9 with first stage recovered in this very article. The Orion EM-2 spacecraft is where the Orion EM-1 was 2 years ago. And you can expect schedule compression on the second build. So, it comes down to how you interpret "notable margin". I would consider shaving 9+ months off a 33 month gap pretty substantial.
Like many of us, I shudder and almost fall into despair at the manufacturing schedule for the SLS booster stage. So, I decided to try to find out how long it took to produce the Saturn V S1C. According to wikipedia (not my favored source, but it was quick), it seems to be 21 - 23 months for a stage. 7 - 9 months for the tankage and 14 months to complete the stage. So, about one every two years.
In another comparison, a Nimitz or Ford Class Aircraft Carrier has ranges from 10 - 12 years (for lead ships) and 5 - 6 years afterwards. Of course, we don't throw them away at the end of the first cruise.