Author Topic: Acronyms to Ascent – SLS managers create development milestone roadmap  (Read 17330 times)

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 44
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13231
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4533
  • Likes Given: 823
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

As I understand it, the future SLS core stage engine will be competed, in a "full and open" contract competition.  As you suggest, there is no guarantee that PWR will win that competition. 

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/25/2012 08:19 pm by edkyle99 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7161
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 684
  • Likes Given: 792
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

As I understand it, the future SLS core stage engine will be competed, in a "full and open" contract competition.  As you suggest, there is no guarantee that PWR will win that competition. 

I thought that the competition was for the second-generation booster, not the core engine.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10759
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3085
  • Likes Given: 1256
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

As I understand it, the future SLS core stage engine will be competed, in a "full and open" contract competition.  As you suggest, there is no guarantee that PWR will win that competition. 

I thought that the competition was for the second-generation booster, not the core engine.

That is correct. The competition is for the boosters, not the core engine, which will be a non-compete RS-25.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13231
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4533
  • Likes Given: 823
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

As I understand it, the future SLS core stage engine will be competed, in a "full and open" contract competition.  As you suggest, there is no guarantee that PWR will win that competition. 

I thought that the competition was for the second-generation booster, not the core engine.

That is correct. The competition is for the boosters, not the core engine, which will be a non-compete RS-25.
Thought I read compete for core, alas.  Since it is more than a decade away, I think RS-25E should be competed

-Ed Kyle

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 5798
Two production lines exist - RS-68 (Delta-IV) and RS-25 (STS & SLS). 1 is actively building (RS-68) and 1 is primed for production (RS-25).

I do not believe Rocketdyne is anything like "primed" for RS-25E.

As I understand it, the future SLS core stage engine will be competed, in a "full and open" contract competition.  As you suggest, there is no guarantee that PWR will win that competition. 

I thought that the competition was for the second-generation booster, not the core engine.

That is correct. The competition is for the boosters, not the core engine, which will be a non-compete RS-25.
Thought I read compete for core, alas.  Since it is more than a decade away, I think RS-25E should be competed

-Ed Kyle
Where are you guys getting your information from?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 44
RS-25E is Rocketdyne by definition. It can't be competed.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13231
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4533
  • Likes Given: 823
Where are you guys getting your information from?
I'm reading the SLS Industry Day presentation, linked in the following message.  This document is essential reading for SLS followers.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26853.msg864885#msg864885

On the bottom of Page 23, the following text is presented.

"Advanced Development
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)/NASA Research Announcement (NRA):
Full and Open Competition
Future Core Stage Engine: Separate contract activity to be held in the future."

It was the bold text (my bold highlighting) that made me expect a competed RS-25 future core engine.

 - Ed Kyle

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 5798
Where are you guys getting your information from?
I'm reading the SLS Industry Day presentation, linked in the following message.  This document is essential reading for SLS followers.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26853.msg864885#msg864885

On the bottom of Page 23, the following text is presented.

"Advanced Development
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)/NASA Research Announcement (NRA):
Full and Open Competition
Future Core Stage Engine: Separate contract activity to be held in the future."

It was the bold text (my bold highlighting) that made me expect a competed RS-25 future core engine.

 - Ed Kyle
Okay, now where is Chuck getting his information?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10759
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 3085
  • Likes Given: 1256
Where are you guys getting your information from?
I'm reading the SLS Industry Day presentation, linked in the following message.  This document is essential reading for SLS followers.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26853.msg864885#msg864885

On the bottom of Page 23, the following text is presented.

"Advanced Development
Broad Agency Announcement (BAA)/NASA Research Announcement (NRA):
Full and Open Competition
Future Core Stage Engine: Separate contract activity to be held in the future."

It was the bold text (my bold highlighting) that made me expect a competed RS-25 future core engine.

 - Ed Kyle
Okay, now where is Chuck getting his information?
Chuck didn't see that and is looking into it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline RyanC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 403
  • SA-506 Launch
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 9
The down select is complete and NASA has made the final choice. 
SLS will be powered by the RS-25.

It's worth noting that P&W/UTC keeps investigating selling Rocketdyne. They wouldn't be doing that route of investigation if they were bullish about SLS' future prospects, which currently uses both RS-25 and J-2X.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2012 06:15 pm by RyanCrierie »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
"At present, SLS-3 is set to fly as the Block 1A configuration. No missions have yet been allocated past EM-2, although teams continued to work towards an exploration roadmap, which is now likely to feature an Exploration Platform “Gateway” at Earth-Moon Lagrange (EML) point 2 – based on what are an increasing number of international meetings on the proposal (L2 Link to SLS Exploration Roadmap Updates)."

I just hope there's enough funding for a lunar lander.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
I just hope there's enough funding for a lunar lander.

Highly unlikely. Lunar landings are not currently in the plan, for several reasons (lack of money for a lander being one of them). And NASA's budget is likely to go down, not up, over the next few years.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2012 07:42 pm by aquanaut99 »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
I just hope there's enough funding for a lunar lander.

Highly unlikely.
Then why waste all this time and money going no where?
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 0
Then why waste all this time and money going no where?

EML-2 and (eventually) a NEA are not "nowhere".

Also, the current administration has decided that the Moon is "been there, done that". And the potential GOP candidates have all shown their hostility to a lunar return, thanks to Newt actually proposing it. Unless Gingrich is elected, I see no chance of a lunar return anytime soon.

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2082
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 539
Then why waste all this time and money going no where?

EML-2 and (eventually) a NEA are not "nowhere".

Also, the current administration has decided that the Moon is "been there, done that". And the potential GOP candidates have all shown their hostility to a lunar return, thanks to Newt actually proposing it. Unless Gingrich is elected, I see no chance of a lunar return anytime soon.
I was talking about the Exploration Gateway Platform (the Boeing moonlanding proposal) which Chris seemed to infer was gaining traction. With no additional hardware EML-2 might as be nowhere.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13231
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 4533
  • Likes Given: 823
Then why waste all this time and money going no where?

EML-2 and (eventually) a NEA are not "nowhere".

Also, the current administration has decided that the Moon is "been there, done that". And the potential GOP candidates have all shown their hostility to a lunar return, thanks to Newt actually proposing it. Unless Gingrich is elected, I see no chance of a lunar return anytime soon.

Lagrange points are "somewhere" for unmanned science missions, but they are definitely "nowhere" for crewed missions.  There is literally nothing there to see or visit!

Asteroid is a one-time mission, and opportunities for such missions come along infrequently.  It will be interesting to the public for about an hour.

Those responsible for SLS should stop trying to obfuscate its real purpose.  There is only one reason to create such a powerful machine.  There is only one place in space for which it is needed to visit - a place with red rocks, sand, and sky.

 - Ed Kyle
« Last Edit: 02/27/2012 09:28 pm by edkyle99 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 5798
Then why waste all this time and money going no where?

EML-2 and (eventually) a NEA are not "nowhere".

Also, the current administration has decided that the Moon is "been there, done that". And the potential GOP candidates have all shown their hostility to a lunar return, thanks to Newt actually proposing it. Unless Gingrich is elected, I see no chance of a lunar return anytime soon.

Lagrange points are "somewhere" for unmanned science missions, but they are definitely "nowhere" for crewed missions.  There is literally nothing there to see or visit!

Asteroid is a one-time mission, and opportunities for such missions come along infrequently.  It will be interesting to the public for about an hour.

Those responsible for SLS should stop trying to obfuscate its real purpose.  There is only one reason to create such a powerful machine.  There is only one place in space for which it is needed to visit - a place with red rocks, sand, and sky.

 - Ed Kyle
...butterscotch sky. ;)

(By the way, I have a sort of feeling that if SLS survives, it will be in a cargo-only role with Orion launching on Delta IV Heavy... D4H serving the same role as Ares I did...)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 68
DIV-H Orion MPCV can't go beyond LEO without a prop depot.

NASA wants all up and all their studies tell us all up is the way to go.

They want to launch Orion with CPS and this requires a HLV.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong because I really don't know.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28856
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 9048
  • Likes Given: 5798
DIV-H Orion MPCV can't go beyond LEO without a prop depot....
DIV-H can function the same as Ares I did in Constellation. Did you bother reading what I actually wrote? ;)
« Last Edit: 02/28/2012 12:18 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Tags: