News Space Launch System News

[Urwumpe]

No fragile Orbiter nearby, so need to have that.

Also the SRB lies flat on the ground and the ignition shock of the SRB is not reflected back on the stack.

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight.com: SLS Mission Trajectory – Mike Sarafin outlines the ride uphill for EM-1

 

[Thunder Chicken]

Is it me, or does it seem that SLS progress is glacially slow? I understand that is a very large rocket, but other than the size I am not seeing great leaps in technology. Most of the hardware is STS-derived technology.

I'm not trying to be snarky; just really curious if I am missing something and others have a different perception of the progress and the probability that this will be built and flown.

 

[DaveS]

Is it me, or does it seem that SLS progress is glacially slow? I understand that is a very large rocket, but other than the size I am not seeing great leaps in technology. Most of the hardware is STS-derived technology.

I'm not trying to be snarky; just really curious if I am missing something and others have a different perception of the progress and the probability that this will be built and flown.

Hardware is being fabricated and tested right now. It was the same deal with STS even though alot of Apollo/Saturn infrastructure was being reused. First actual rollout of a complete Space Shuttle Vehicle (Enterprise mated to a dummy ET and inert SRBs) didn't occur until May 1 1979 despite the orbiter vehicle being completed in 1976.

To give KSC examples: The various umbilicals for the new Mobile Launcher is being tested at the Launch Equipment Test Facility (LETF) right now to ensure their proper operation. High Bay 3 of the VAB is being outfitted with its 20 brand new platforms. That is going pretty well, 1 platform being installed a month. Pad 39B is being modified as well. The removal of the STS FSS/RSS was just the most visible part.

 

[Kyle]

I'd say SLS development is going along smoothly; there hasn't been a major slip in the schedule for quite some time (and the previous slips were due to the ESA SM if I remember correctly).

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Is it me, or does it seem that SLS progress is glacially slow? I understand that is a very large rocket, but other than the size I am not seeing great leaps in technology. Most of the hardware is STS-derived technology.

I'm not trying to be snarky; just really curious if I am missing something and others have a different perception of the progress and the probability that this will be built and flown.

Oh, I suspect that's intentional. Stretch out the contract a little longer, and a new president will have some new-fangled idea of where we should go and what we should do in space... and SLS will get scrapped.

Face it. We were here eight years ago with Constellation and Ares.

 

[Fabri91]

I'm not so sure: did Ares V and I actually ever reach the fabrication stage?

 

[boogabooga]

NASASpaceflight.com: SLS Mission Trajectory – Mike Sarafin outlines the ride uphill for EM-1

Right now, it sounds as if the mission trajectory planning for EM-1 is at the same level as a good Orbiter add-on.

We have three design phases of the mission trajectory; we’re doing the preliminary mission [trajectory design] phase, then we have a ‘final’ analysis [but] it’s not the ‘final’, and then we have what’s called a ‘best-estimate’ trajectory, so we’re in that initial phase.

:huh:

 

[Urwumpe]

I'd say SLS development is going along smoothly; there hasn't been a major slip in the schedule for quite some time (and the previous slips were due to the ESA SM if I remember correctly).

It is rather slow, but steady - but then no surprise, considering how little the SLS budget was initially and now slowly grows, while less budget is needed for finishing Orion.

I can't really complain project management wise about the SLS or Orion, both operate fine so far. The utilization concept for both just has some black holes in it, we are still in the phase of having a "Space architecture without a mission". Also it is not known yet what is going to be next after SLS? The end of NASA?

 

[fred18]

I think that the point is a bit the lack (and fear) of target and the lack of real competition.

When there was USA against Russia competition Saturn V and all the rest was designed, built and flew some twenty times in a few years.

Now the idea is that we want to go to Mars, because we already went to the moon and there's nothing else to do there for the time being, but there is also fear of going to Mars because we still don't know which is the best way to do it, and it still seems a challenge greater than our actual capabilities.
And no one is attempting to get there before NASA, the others are starting now to have some results on getting there some small robots...

So it's like "we want to have this huge rocket to go on, ready for the next step" but there is no knowledge of what will be the next step and there is no hurry of getting there...

I'm actually surprised on how the SLS is proceeding despite these two points above here. It's like building a new Saturn V without knowing precisely what to do with it and when.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm actually surprised on how the SLS is proceeding despite these two points above here. It's like building a new Saturn V without knowing precisely what to do with it and when.

Well, those SLS, that also have RS-25 engines allocated, also have missions already... that is not the problem. But I doubt that using RS-25 engines will ever make it more than a silver bullet.

I could see some sense in letting SpaceX and Co do the hauling, but beyond Earths atmosphere, we still miss something.

 

[K_Jameson]

I'm actually surprised on how the SLS is proceeding despite these two points above here. It's like building a new Saturn V without knowing precisely what to do with it and when.

Exactly.
A rocket of this size and cost should be built with some real goal in mind, not only the vague word "Mars".
Where such a rocket finds a real utility is in the launch of heavy, mission-dedicated unmanned payload, to be mated in orbit with the crew. At the current stage, these payloads are simply inexistent. But the problem isn't that are inexistent (after all, Skylab was conceived well after the realization of the Saturn V), but that are inexistent the fundings for them...

 

[fred18]

Well, those SLS, that also have RS-25 engines allocated, also have missions already... that is not the problem. But I doubt that using RS-25 engines will ever make it more than a silver bullet.

I could see some sense in letting SpaceX and Co do the hauling, but beyond Earths atmosphere, we still miss something.

They have missions, but it seems to me more that the missions are designed on the rocket, rather than the rocket on the mission.

 

[Urwumpe]

They have missions, but it seems to me more that the missions are designed on the rocket, rather than the rocket on the mission.

Exactly that. Also that mission design is again not sustainable. It depends on large boosters being available for all eternity. I have doubts that NASA can sell services like that to really stupid politicians. It has too many weaknesses exposed.

I wonder how hard it would be to get to a "24ft standard architecture", that allows to build larger spacecraft and space stations from modules launched to LEO to any suitable launch vehicle.

 

[GLS]

People were complaining about that the Shuttle was a white elephant, but this rocket (which builds on proven technology) will fly at best 2 times per year (if it has payloads, which apparently it doesn't) and in the end it will probably cost more. And then there's a capsule that can probably have people living in it for 2-4 weeks... and that's it. To quote Keith Cowing: #JourneyToNowhere
:facepalm:

 

[Urwumpe]

People were complaining about that the Shuttle was a white elephant, but this rocket (which builds on proven technology) will fly at best 2 times per year (if it has payloads, which apparently it doesn't) and in the end it will probably cost more. And then there's a capsule that can probably have people living in it for 2-4 weeks... and that's it. To quote Keith Cowing: #JourneyToNowhere
:facepalm:

There will also be a "short-duration habitat" for it. But I have no idea how short that is.

 

[K_Jameson]

People were complaining about that the Shuttle was a white elephant, but this rocket (which builds on proven technology) will fly at best 2 times per year (if it has payloads, which apparently it doesn't) and in the end it will probably cost more. And then there's a capsule that can probably have people living in it for 2-4 weeks... and that's it. To quote Keith Cowing: #JourneyToNowhere
:facepalm:

I'm not against SLS. I really think that a super heavy launcher is needed if we want to explore beyond low earth orbit.
The problem is that the entire thing is ludicrously expensive and is under founded. Maybe a method to regain some of the money spent could be the use in the commercial market. Imagine the launch of an entire constellation of communication satellites in a single launch.

A clever move would be a more radical use of the STS hardware (Shuttle-C style). It could be a 100 tons capable launcher with marginal development risks (no new SRB, unchanged ET, etc) but it was decided against it...

 

[Fabri91]

The problem with that is that there currently isn't a real need to launch many spacecraft together: take Ariane 5, which was originally developed for the Hermes manned spaceplane. Right now Ariane 5 is only competitive due to its ability to launch two big-ish spacecraft in one go, but this is more of a constraint than an advantage over the smaller "properly sized" competition.

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm not against SLS.

Oh, ok. I am. :lol:

I am highly critical of it and rather see it as the offspring of the Space Shuttle program, that turned into a Ne'er-do-well and now is constantly sent to different places to finally get a job, though with little success.

I really think that a super heavy launcher is needed if we want to explore beyond low earth orbit.

I am skeptical there. First of all, yes, if we are really exploring beyond Earth, we will have much higher payload volumes to be transported than today.

But then, I doubt it is the right launcher for the right time (see below why).

And if we look at long-distance exploration, I doubt it could really EVER become a good choice, because technology does not wait for the SLS. Maybe we will have a space elevator or a Launch Loop in 30 years. Who could tell now?

Big Dumb Boosters aren't really an option if you look at modern flight rates, maybe as intermediate solution at a point. But in the long term, they are simply too single purpose even in their manufacturing.

The problem is that the entire thing is ludicrously expensive and is under founded. Maybe a method to regain some of the money spent could be the use in the commercial market. Imagine the launch of an entire constellation of communication satellites in a single launch...

Its too inflexible and over-sized for now and the next years to come. Yes, you could do all years work in a single launch. But that is also it. Its launch pad is rusting most of the year and requires maintenance, your workers will have nothing to do for most of the year...

I believe, that a smaller launcher, maybe even as large as 40 tons to LEO and 20 tons to GTO, would be more suitable for the next decade.

 

[K_Jameson]

Its too inflexible and over-sized for now and the next years to come. Yes, you could do all years work in a single launch. But that is also it. Its launch pad is rusting most of the year and requires maintenance, your workers will have nothing to do for most of the year...

I believe, that a smaller launcher, maybe even as large as 40 tons to LEO and 20 tons to GTO, would be more suitable for the next decade.

Launch pad should be shared with smaller vehicles with higher launch rate, and possibly the entire system should be based on the same components, each individually with an high launch rate. A scalable family of launchers.
Surely SLS is a "closed system" and this is a big problem.

Anyway... I don't think 20 tons is the right number for some magical reason. Simply put: current payloads are scaled for 20 tons launchers because currently these are the best we have.
Space X is pushing for increasing in payload capacity (Falcon 9 Full Thrust, Falcon Heavy) and not coincidentally.

I have an old external HD for storage, 250GB. Now I want to replace it with something bigger. OK, 3TB could be exaggerated for my needs now... but not for ever...