Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 11-21-2017 01:15 PM
The two years (22 months) between EM-1 and EM-2 is primary driven by the time needed to modify the mobile launcher to support the taller Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) equipped Space Launch System that will launch on EM-2 for the first time.
quote:Originally posted by SpaceAngel: ...slipped until 2020
Officially, NASA is targeting December 2019 for EM-1:
While the review of the possible manufacturing and production schedule risks indicate a launch date of June 2020, the agency is managing to December 2019," said acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot. "Since several of the key risks identified have not been actually realized, we are able to put in place mitigation strategies for those risks to protect the December 2019 date."
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-15-2018 08:39 AM
In an editorial for Politico, Harrison Schmitt lays out the case for the Space Launch System.
Since the test flight of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy launch vehicle a few short months ago, many have questioned why we need SLS when commercial vehicles boast "bargain" prices. Their arguments center on the price-per-pound to orbit of commercial vehicles compared to SLS. However a price-per-pound comparison is practically meaningless in the context of real deep space mission requirements.
We need to launch crew along with the systems and supplies needed to support human life for longer than a couple of days in order to begin building our next "home away from home" in deep space. Depending upon location we will also need to launch a lot of infrastructure. For example, if lunar resources are to be used to support terrestrial fusion power, lunar settlement, and Mars exploration, large scale production and refining equipment and habitat and power facilities will be required.
SLS is designed to evolve to meet these needs. For purposes of comparison, let's assess just the current capabilities of SLS and SpaceX's Falcon Heavy in the context of each of deep space mission requirements...
cspg Member
Posts: 6235 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
posted 06-15-2018 10:24 AM
Why do we need to launch crew and cargo together? As for fusion, it doesn't work as of now so I fail to see what the SLS has anything to do with it.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 06-15-2018 10:39 AM
Schmitt has long advocated that helium-3 resources on the moon could be the driving force for a return, so while it is not a NASA priority, it is understandable why he included it.
quote:Originally posted by cspg: Why do we need to launch crew and cargo together?
We don't, and SLS is not envisioned to launch with a crew on every flight, but Orion has been built to fly on SLS and Schmitt lays out his reasons for why he thinks Orion is the vehicle of choice.
SkyMan1958 Member
Posts: 941 From: CA. Registered: Jan 2011
posted 06-15-2018 09:22 PM
For purposes of comparison, let's assess just the current capabilities of SLS and SpaceX's Falcon Heavy in the context of each of deep space mission requirements...
Last I heard the "current capabilities" of the SLS are zero, and both the major variants of it still need many billions of dollars of development funding.
posted 07-30-2018 12:42 PM
Will there be any test firings of the liquid stages of the SLS before the actual launch?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 07-30-2018 01:31 PM
A "green run" test slated for 2019 will fire the entire SLS EM-1 core stage with its four RS-25 engines on the B-2 test stand at Stennis Space Center.
The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) is already at the Cape awaiting launch. It is directly based on the Delta Cryogenic Second Stage, which has a long flight history.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 10-10-2018 07:41 PM
The Office of Inspector General assessed NASA's management of the Boeing contract developing the Space Launch System's core stages and Exploration Upper Stage, key parts of the new heavy-lift rocket.
oly Member
Posts: 1108 From: Perth, Western Australia Registered: Apr 2015
posted 10-10-2018 09:10 PM
Okay, this is only my opinion, for what it may be worth.
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.
If it fails, I at least hope the SSME units assigned to SLS find a better purpose. There must be a long list of people who could use just some of the money SLS needs to be completed for an idea or program within the aerospace or space arena that have been previously rejected due to lack of funds, or a former space shuttle program employee that now feel slightly more annoyed.
posted 03-24-2019 09:59 AM
If anyone has been following the testimony of the NASA Administrator, for a variety of reasons, the SLS program, seems to be a mess. It makes one wonder if it's a waste of money and time.
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 03-24-2019 11:15 AM
Although he has acknowledged problems with the program, Jim Bridenstine has also stressed the importance of the Space Launch System. Just 10 days ago, he said:
SLS and Orion are a critical capability for this country, and it's in our national interest to continue those.
If you look back at comments made about the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft circa 1966-1967, you'll find similar sentiments to your own about SLS. To quote Wayne Hale (via Twitter):
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.
Headshot Member
Posts: 952 From: Vancouver, WA, USA Registered: Feb 2012
posted 10-21-2019 10:25 AM
From this NASA release:
The full contract is expected to support up to 10 core stages and up to eight Exploration Upper Stages (EUS).
Ten SLS core stages will require 40 RS-25 engines? Sooner or later the supply of modified shuttle engines will be depleted. Would procuring the remainder be a separate contract?
Robert Pearlman Editor
Posts: 44929 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
posted 10-21-2019 01:32 PM
NASA signed a contract with Aerojet Rocketdyne in 2015 that runs through 2024 to restart production of the RS-25 and modernize it "to make it more affordable and expendable."
That contract included the initial production of six more engines, which when combined with the SSME-legacy engines and two engines built up from spare parts, is enough to fly the first six missions.
posted 11-21-2017 01:15 PM
advertisement