Good article, but I am left slightly stunned regarding SLS from it. Between the need for new engines for both Orion and SLS and now needing new boosters, it clearly shows how the decision to utilize STS i.e. space shuttle heritage parts is backfiring a bit. However, at the time the decisions were made it wasn't necessarily a bad idea but apparently the workforce and factories, even the ones not based on 1970s traditional shuttle tech, moved on quicker than NASA anticipated.
So while issues like this may seem like a surprise, they are to be expected.Also, issues like this don't affect the future of the SLS or Orion despite any cost increases they may incur because Congress has not shown that they care about the cost of the SLS or Orion. They never approved the SLS or Orion MPCV based on an estimated cost, and they have not asked NASA to provide estimates of the current cost trends.Which is why the future of the SLS and Orion are not tied to how much they cost, how long they take to fly, or even whether there are lower-cost alternatives. Their future is determined on whether Congress funds payloads and programs that require them - which Congress really hasn't so far.
"Orbital ATK’s proposal – nicknamed the “Dark Knights” due to their black casings – builds on their booster legacy, with a motor that is “advanced” on several levels, by “provid(ing) NASA the capability for the SLS to achieve 130 mT capability – the baseline for SLS Block 2 – with significant margin, utilizing a booster that is 40 percent less expensive and 24 percent more reliable than the current SLS booster."Isn't a 24% reliability improvement enough to justify going to the replacement immediately?
Good article, but I am left slightly stunned regarding SLS from it. Between the need for new engines for both Orion and SLS and now needing new boosters, it clearly shows how the decision to utilize STS i.e. space shuttle heritage parts is backfiring a bit. However, at the time the decisions were made it wasn't necessarily a bad idea but apparently the workforce and factories, even the ones not based on 1970s traditional shuttle tech, moved on quicker than NASA anticipated.So I'm guessing that the take-away from this and the prior news bits on Orion and SLS is that, somehow, SLS will have to forcibly evolve to block 2 even before the assumed 2030s timeline. Almost a good thing, since improved boosters would boost payloads, but a rush job works best if it's properly paid for...which NASA never has been since the Apollo era.Mostly I'm stunned.
... and 24 percent more reliable than the current SLS booster."Isn't a 24% reliability improvement enough to justify going to the replacement immediately?
8 years (?) now into the SLS program, and we are still 8-9 years away from STS replacement technology (black knight booster) being ready and available. (16 YEARS!) I don't know if I should or .But as others have hinted, this is a *feature* of the program, not a bug. This is how the contractors wanted it. Maximum contracts with minimal deliverables.
Quote from: redliox on 05/08/2018 09:17 pmMostly I'm stunned.You shouldn't be stunned. The use of STS hardware isn't backfiring, either. This is exactly the plan. Shifting to Advanced Boosters was always going to happen, it's the SLS Block 2. So also the requirement for new engines for SLS / Orion's SM. There's only so many existing things that can be used up before new things are needed.
Mostly I'm stunned.
That be cool if SpaceX or ULA/BLUE proposed a Raptor based boosters or Vulcan based Boosters but rockets aren't legos.
The obvious thing to me is at a flight rate of 1 per year, we have at least 8 years before the new ones are needed.Assuming no other delays push the flights to a later date.
It's a bogus statement. There is no such thing as 124% reliability. It's a stupid thing to say. It's an arrogant thing to say. It's the kind of stupidity and arrogance that gets people killed.
8 years (?) now into the SLS program, and we are still 8-9 years away from STS replacement technology (black knight booster) being ready and available. (16 YEARS!) I don't know if I should or .
Quote from: ejb749 on 05/08/2018 09:58 pm... and 24 percent more reliable than the current SLS booster."Isn't a 24% reliability improvement enough to justify going to the replacement immediately?First: Thank you Chris for the article. It is well written and informative.Now, I personally consider that statement of a 24% increase in reliability to be suspect in the extreme. The original booster was already 100% reliable. The only failure of the booster was caused by NASA mismanagement insisting over the objections of their own safety teams that they fly Shuttle in violation of their own safety standards. The weather was too cold for the segment seals to seal properly. ATK engineers said "don't launch". NASA engineers said "don't launch". NASA safety said "don't launch". So what did NASA do? NASA launched - and lost the vehicle and killed 7 astronauts. That was not the booster's fault. It was NASA managerial stupidity and arrogance.The booster itself was already 100% reliable. But like any machine there are limits to safe operation. Stay in the limits and we had 100% reliability. You cannot get better reliability than 100%. It's a bogus statement. There is no such thing as 124% reliability. It's a stupid thing to say. It's an arrogant thing to say. It's the kind of stupidity and arrogance that gets people killed.
Quote from: whitelancer64 on 05/08/2018 10:18 pmQuote from: redliox on 05/08/2018 09:17 pmMostly I'm stunned.You shouldn't be stunned. The use of STS hardware isn't backfiring, either. This is exactly the plan. Shifting to Advanced Boosters was always going to happen, it's the SLS Block 2. So also the requirement for new engines for SLS / Orion's SM. There's only so many existing things that can be used up before new things are needed.Specifically the SRBs seemed to be the one solid, simple piece of the STS left. While its parents company merged and changed, it still exists and actively tested 5 segment variations of the SRBs. It wouldn't seem a stretch to maintain rather than break the molds.Ultimately of course, everyone's right regarding there's only so much of every kind of hardware to go around. Block 2 and the advanced boosters, though, were always emphasized to be "in the future" with a date only slightly less vague than the first mission to Mars (even the orbital version). Thinking that way you'd naturally make optimistic assumptions about OrbitalATK and NASA...
Quote from: mike robel on 05/08/2018 10:34 pmThe obvious thing to me is at a flight rate of 1 per year, we have at least 8 years before the new ones are needed.Assuming no other delays push the flights to a later date.Correct. With delays that does mean 10 years after the likely start flight of EM-1 in '20 we'd see Block 2 happen in '30. That however just depresses me further regarding NASA's HSF.
Quote from: Lars-J on 05/08/2018 10:44 pm8 years (?) now into the SLS program, and we are still 8-9 years away from STS replacement technology (black knight booster) being ready and available. (16 YEARS!) I don't know if I should or .If it is going to be 9 years for replacements and with previous hints that we may be stuck with Block 1 a while longer, I start to wonder if it'd make more sense to skip 1B and go straight to Block 2 after the STS supplies die out.I'm losing track on what we have left for inventory on STS parts! I know we had articles similar to this before with the OMS-now-Orion-engines and STS-now-SLS-core-engines. How many flights do we have before worrying about gaps in replacements?