Boeing to propose SLS-launched lander for HLS bid

[jadebenn]

The EUS (Exploration Upper Stage) has been delayed. Spacenut is correct, Block IB is not flying soon. Block I with the ICPS upper stage is on slate, and only 1 per year is to be built. SLS is underpowered for the task at hand due to too few main engines, underpowered solid boosters, and a ridiculously small upper stage. It is also absurdly overpriced.

Spacenut was not correct. He said there was no money appropriated for Block 1B (aka EUS). There has been. You're putting words in both his and my mouths.

[spacenut]

Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 

In 3-4 years all of the new rockets will be on the market making SLS the most expensive $/kg launcher available. 

Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".

[ncb1397]

Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

2016:

Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $85,000,000 shall be for enhanced upper
stage development

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2029/text

2017:

Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/244/text

2018:

Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $300,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1625/text

2019:

Provided further, That of the amounts
provided for SLS, not less than $150,000,000 shall be for Exploration
Upper Stage development

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-joint-resolution/31/text

[meberbs]

It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

[envy887]

It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

[jadebenn]

Other than NASA is going to use a Delta IV Heavy upper stage, when was money appropriated for the Block 1B upper stage (EUS)?  If it has been recently appropriated, it will be 3-4 years before it is built as slow as NASA and Boeing goes. 

EUS funding was first appropriated back in 2016. Forgive me for not having the line-item up right now, but it's in the budget somewhere.

It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 

Thrust is pretty much irrelevant for Block 1 and ICPS. By the time it comes into play, the core's already put the rocket on a highly elliptical orbit. A small burn at apoapsis to bring the Orion+ICPS stack's periapsis out of the atmosphere is all that's needed.

Thrust is more relevant for Block 1B and EUS, because the added mass causes the core to stage at a lower velocity, meaning that EUS has to perform the last portion of the orbital burn. However, all that info I've seen suggests that while the gravity losses of EUS hurts the SLS's theoretical payload to LEO capacity, it still beats out higher-thrust lower-Isp alternatives for payload to TLI.

Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".

I do not. In fact, my entry to the space fandom at-large came through the KSP and SpaceX communities a couple of years after the Shuttle stopped flying.

How I went from that to holding the opinions I do now is a long and complicated story that no-one really wants to hear, but suffice to say that I wasn't always so pro-SLS.

It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

I have provided a photo of some test articles and tooling for the EUS, so I don't think fabrication is super far off, but I absolutely agree that they're not near the production stage yet. The stage's design hasn't passed CDR yet, after all.

[envy887]

It would be cheaper to ask Blue Origin to build a New Glenn upper stage for the SLS.  It would have two 100,000 lb. thrust BE-3U's for some real kick and a real payload. 

The existing upper stage will only have one RL-10 at what 30,000 lbs thrust.  The EUS will have what 4 RL-10's for 120 ,000 lbs.  Still seems anemic to me.  RL-10's are very expensive compared to newer engines developed by Blue Origin and SpaceX. 

Thrust is pretty much irrelevant for Block 1 and ICPS. By the time it comes into play, the core's already put the rocket on a highly elliptical orbit. A small burn at apoapsis to bring the Orion+ICPS stack's periapsis out of the atmosphere is all that's needed.

Thrust is more relevant for Block 1B and EUS, because the added mass causes the core to stage at a lower velocity, meaning that EUS has to perform the last portion of the orbital burn. However, all that info I've seen suggests that while the gravity losses of EUS hurts the SLS's theoretical payload to LEO capacity, it still beats out higher-thrust lower-Isp alternatives for payload to TLI.

More thrust at lower ISP only really helps if what you're pushing with that thrust is heavy. For instance, Block 1 would get the most payload to TLI if it used its full 95 t payload capacity to put a large EDS in LEO, and the EDS did TLI instead of ICPS doing it (and this is true even if the EDS has a much lower ISP than ICPS does). In the case of a heavy payload, the core stage would drop off before reaching orbit, so more thrust on ICPS would help. Centaur 5 might be a better option than DCSS.

New Glenn's upper stage might end up with more thrust, more propellant, and higher ISP than EUS. This would definitely give more payload to LEO, which is useful if you have a large EDS as I described above, but the larger dry mass of the stage might actually hurt it to TLI - it's hard to say for sure without better data on Blue's stage.

[su27k]

It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.

https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-19-001.pdf

Between June 2014 and August 2018, Boeing spent over $600 million more than planned on developing the two Core Stages.24 To cover these additional costs, Boeing has been using funds intended for EUS development, while NASA has been relying on SLS Program reserves.

NASA does not require Boeing to report detailed information on development costs for the two Core Stages and EUS, making it difficult for the Agency to determine if the contractor is meeting cost and schedule commitments for each deliverable. In accordance with current FAR guidance and consistent with leading management practices for a contract of this scope and cost, each contract deliverable should have its own CLIN in order to track costs and evaluate a contractor’s performance. However, when NASA definitized the Boeing Stages contract in 2014, individual CLINs were recommended but not required by the FAR.35 As such, NASA procurement officials combined these activities under a single CLIN to achieve a simplified approach that it hoped would reduce administrative reporting. As a result, under the Boeing Stages contract, all costs related to the two Core Stages and EUS are reported through one funding line—CLIN 9—which makes tracking current expenditures difficult. Moreover, given this cost-reporting structure, the Agency is unable to determine the cost of a single Core Stage.

[ncb1397]

It seems to me like the confusion here is that all of the above say development. There has obviously been design work done, but spacenut is talking about the actual build and procurement of a flight article. I can't say that I have seen evidence of that being done, although it is not impossible that the "development" money has started to be used for it. Flight article procurement contracts or flight hardware is the evidence that would be required to counter spacenut's comments.

EUS has not passed CDR, so I would not expect to see flight hardware. The design is still being finalized. It's definitely funded though.

It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.

Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it? While they can't track it by CLIN number, they seem to have a way to break it out. Anyways, substantial money was obviously spent on EUS (in the hundreds of millions). From Jadebenn's slide, they have tooling for USA's composite structure, a flight set of engines and a flight spare, payload adapters and have been working on welding the tanks beyond just the design work well past PDR.

[jadebenn]

It's more complicated than that, while EUS is funded from Congress point of view, NASA IG has found out that Boeing is using EUS funding to cover the cost overrun for core stage, and because NASA allows Boeing to put core stage funding and EUS funding into one line item, there's no way for NASA to know how much money is spent on EUS in reality.

Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it? While they can't track it by CLIN number, they seem to have a way to break it out. Anyways, substantial money was obviously spent on EUS (in the hundreds of millions). From Jadebenn's slide, they have tooling for USA's composite structure, a flight set of engines and a flight spare, payload adapters and have been working on welding the tanks beyond just the design work well past PDR.

Sounds like it's a bit of both. There is obviously significant funding going to EUS, but it also seems some of that funding has been used to cover the core stage difficulties.

[su27k]

Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?

I assume Boeing told NASA about it? It's not like they can keep such things as a secret, core stage cost overrun is a fact, the additional money has to come from somewhere. But only Boeing knows the exact amount.

[ncb1397]

Then how does the NASA OIG know that 685 million wasn't spent on EUS in that time period if NASA has no way of tracking it?

I assume Boeing told NASA about it? It's not like they can keep such things as a secret, core stage cost overrun is a fact, the additional money has to come from somewhere. But only Boeing knows the exact amount.

The OIG report says that tracking expenditures is "difficult", not impossible. But Boeing has to report certified cost data to NASA in order to be reimbursed as part of a cost plus contract. Without the unique CLINs, you would have to do a detailed audit,which apparently OIG did.

But as far as knowing the "exact" amount, not having that is part of the cost savings of only having one CLIN. You can share resources(i.e. people) between both projects without having the overhead of keeping track. So when the core stage needed help from someone, they could be easily provided. So, not even Boeing would know an exact figure.

[meberbs]

Jadebenn, do you work for Boeing or NASA?  Just wondering why you haven't seen the handwritting on the wall concerning NASA and "New Space".

I do not. In fact, my entry to the space fandom at-large came through the KSP and SpaceX communities a couple of years after the Shuttle stopped flying.

How I went from that to holding the opinions I do now is a long and complicated story that no-one really wants to hear, but suffice to say that I wasn't always so pro-SLS.

I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.

[jadebenn]

I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.

I mean, I've basically summarized it in a few other posts. You can look there if you're curious. But I really don't think it'd be on-topic to discuss in this thread.

[meberbs]

I assure you that you are completely wrong. I for one am very interested, no matter how boring you might think it is. For anyone who is still pro-SLS, I am interested in how they formed that opinion and why they still hold it. This is probably not the best thread for you to tell that story, but I would listen with great interest.

I mean, I've basically summarized it in a few other posts. You can look there if you're curious. But I really don't think it'd be on-topic to discuss in this thread.

I have read a large number of your posts but never seen such, can you point to where you did so specifically, or pick an appropriate thread and summarize there? I already agreed that this is not the thread for it.

[jadebenn]

New press release:

Boeing Proposes ‘Fewest Steps to the Moon’ for NASA’s Human Lander

Also confirms lander will launch on SLS Block 1B.

[MATTBLAK]

IF SLS ever gets a proper upper stage! Little sign of that happening.

[ncb1397]

Previous rendering was a decoy...

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1191830675160289282

[jadebenn]

Here's a mystery for y'all:



What engine is that?

Because it's certainly not the four RL-10s EUS is supposed to have.

[zack]

So that EUS in Boeing's rendering has only one engine. Error, or new engine?