posted 10-10-2018 09:10 PM               

It seems lessons learnt during previous systems developments do not get picked up by follow up programs. The logistics of the SLS is by no means something new to NASA or many contractors, and Boeing have vast experience with large scale complexed programs.

The SLS basic design is nothing revolutionary or something never tried before, the tank designs, thrust structure, engines and thermal protection designs are all evolution or carry over items.

Based on this, it seems strange NASA, with ongoing budget constraints, allow contracts to overrun like this without A) knowing about it, B) having some control over it, C) wanting to get best value for money return.

This is the reason commercial programs were pushed by governments, to get better value for their dollar (your dollar), and yet overruns and delays have no perceivable penalty, other than some bad press for a while. If the previous generation successfully achieved the goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, putting a launch vehicle into service, using legacy items, within a budget and timeframe surely must be within some achievable realm.

There should be some kind of penalty for failure to meet milestones, and a failure to deliver. Perhaps if a failure to deliver resulted in a requirement for the next 3 launch vehicles to be delivered at no cost to government, tighter control of the programs would be undertaken at earlier stages.

There must be a point in time when somebody considers looking at the Orion spacecraft being mated to a Falcon Heavy or another launch vehicle so that the Orion program can continue forward and let SLS fortunes be self fulfilling. That way, if Boeing have confidence in the SLS, they will find a way to bring it online, and the Orion program becomes stand alone as well. This also does what the commercial space partnership idea originally intended, by giving players capable of achieving what is required a chance.

If Blue Origin or someone else can take on the launch requirements that SLS spruiked, this may be the nail in the coffin SLS detractors have been seeking.

I hope SLS becomes a reality, if only so that the past few years have not been in vain. I myself have failed to find an enthusiasm for SLS because it always seemed to be going backward from the direction a NASA driven program should, I believe, be done. NASA driven programs should be cutting edge, ingenious ideas to achieve goals. SLS seemed to be a means to an end or a way of keeping someone busy until a better idea comes along. Taking the left over items from a 30 year old program, reinventing the wheel to build a heavy lift rocket, trashing assets in the ocean while researching environmental and climate science, at the cost of billions in development dollars, without the expectation that some new and exciting innovation will come out of it seems like madness on a drug fueled rampage. I have sometimes wondered how the discussions of such ideas play out.

posted 03-24-2019 11:15 AM               

SLS and Orion are a critical capability for this country, and it's in our national interest to continue those.

When asked if existing smaller rockets could be used for moon landing rather than the costly and delayed Saturns, Wernher von Braun replied: "It would be like flying the Berlin airlift with Piper Cubs. You can't say it couldn't be done but the logistics are overwhelming."

So just to be clear, I think you need a big rocket to have a credible deep space program.

posted 10-21-2019 10:25 AM               

The full contract is expected to support up to 10 core stages and up to eight Exploration Upper Stages (EUS).

posted 10-31-2020 09:10 PM               

At an ASAP meeting last month, Paul Hill, a member of the panel and a former flight and mission operations director at the agency, said the "panel has great concern about the end-to-end integrated test capability and plans, especially for flight software."

Instead of one comprehensive avionics and software test to mimic flight, he said, there is "instead multiple and separate labs; emulators and simulations are being used to test subsets of the software."

... NASA pushed back on the safety panel's findings, saying in a statement that "all software, hardware, and combination for every phase of the Artemis I mission is thoroughly tested and evaluated to ensure that it meets NASA's strict safety requirements and is fully qualified for human spaceflight."

The agency and its contractors are "conducting integrated end-to-end testing for the software, hardware, avionics and integrated systems needed to fly Artemis missions," it said.

posted 11-02-2020 07:19 AM               

My comment was intended to read that both NASA and the SLS program management cannot afford to let messages regarding any doubt about the integrity of the SLS engineering safety or reliability gain traction and that it would be wise to nip any doubt in the bud, the program has a lot of credibility bet on the success of the system, and the drawn-out and limited flight schedule can't slip behind without either failing to meet the boots on the moon planned date or the future Mars missions.