More Falcon 9 Delays at SpaceX
Video: AIAA Space Conference – Executive Vision Discussion
“The annual AIAA Space conference is underway. In this plenary session government, business, and academic leaders engage in conversation about the direction of change in the space industry and the trends impacting future developments in space science, military space, space launch, and space exploration.”
SpaceX’s next launch delayed longer than expected, LA Times
“SpaceX said its next launch will be delayed longer than expected after the June 28 accident that destroyed its unmanned ship carrying cargo to the International Space Station. The Hawthorne-based company is still “a couple months away from the next flight,” Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX, said Monday at a scientific forum in Pasadena. “We’re taking more time than we originally envisioned to get back to flight,” she said. “But I don’t think any of our customers wants us to race to the cliff and fail again.”
Keith’s note: Note: SpaceX discusses their upcoming Falcon 9 launch schedule.
And in other news, the Sun rose this morning. When will someone, anyone actually put forth a schedule or budget on a space project that is actually kept? Is it that only optimists work on space programs because pessimists would have quit long ago?
You can generally count on SpaceX in particular to fall short of their published timelines. However those are so wildly optimistic, that even their failures are often impressive and commendable. So even pessimists like me can find room for optimism.
Thus SpaceX generates hope 🙂
And those that point out how unrealistic those timelines are get pummeled by the SpaceX fanboys.
No kidding, if that was NASA, they’d be getting stoned.
NASA has its own SLS fanboys who have to be reminded that it hasn’t flown yet and there is no money for any meaningful missions. All this talk of sending astronauts to Mars carries as much weight as talk in the late 1970s of building a new US space station. It took NASA until 1998 to launch Unity.
Oh, and there are only 16 SSMEs turned RS-25 left in NASA’s inventory, which means only four SLS launch attempts before the supply is exhausted. What happens after that? Pure speculation, because I don’t believe there has been any meaningful amount of money to fund an expendable version of the RS-25 and building them “the old way” would be hideously expensive to throw away after every flight.
SLS is a train wreck in slow motion, but its fanboys won’t jump off that train.
Gosh, I guess that is a total surprise to NASA! I don’t suppose they are working with AR to restart production with a cheaper version of RS-25?
Come on, this article was about another SpaceX launch delay. Stay on topic.
Aerojet-Rocketdyne has been working on an expendable version of the RS-25 for some time now. The RS-25 test fires that have been done recently have all been testing component modifications intended for use on the expendable version.
http://aviationweek.com/spa…
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
They’re tested a new engine controller, new inlet conditions (SLS being different than the space shuttle), and full duration firing at the required SLS thrust levels. As far as I can tell that’s about it. The engines themselves are used SSMEs.
The AvWeek article even states that for the proposed first batch of newly manufactured engines, “The first six throwaway RS-25 engines “probably won’t” contain parts
built with additive manufacturing, he says, but likely will be included
in the next generation of changes after that because of the “huge” cost
saving.”
So, some progress is being made towards an “expendable” RS-25, but not much. It’s not like they’ve test fired an RS-25 which was built using the proposed new manufacturing techniques intended to reduce manufacturing costs. They’re years away from that.
According to the NSF article they’ve also tested some new ablative insulation and outside-nominal operating conditions.
Either way, it seems to me they’ve got more work done on it than you implied they had in your original comment.
Since they’ll be using the modified SSMEs for the first few flights it makes sense to get those tested first.
I was thinking of the actual engine hardware, the expensive bits to manufacture. Testing them for the new conditions they will encounter on SLS is required, for sure, but it does nothing to solve the problem of what to do when the existing 16 ex-SSMEs are expended, which only buys NASA four launch attempts.
The fact remains that as of yet, NASA has not signed any contracts for the manufacture of new RS-25 engines.
Given that they won’t be an needed until after the 4th flight of the SLS, that puts the critical due date around 2024 or so. It’s not like there’s a great crunch for time.
That’s what I call “damning with faint praise”. Extremely high fixed costs coupled with an abysmally low flight rate is not a recipe for a sustainable space transportation architecture.
Few, if any, would argue that the SLS is sustainable. It’s certainly not the case I would make.
Prepare to be stoned
Keeps you in good shape 🙂
A certain gentleman on September 12, 1962 put forth a nice schedule for a space project, which was upheld well with about 5 month schedule slack.
Good point! Wish I knew what was different other than they were all incredibly overworked.
Yes, if you go back in history, and look at how things were
functioning back then, you’ll find that aviation and aerospace
industries were much more agile than they are today.
Things actually done in time and under budget was much more frequently than today. You can find plenty of examples from both civil and military side of things.
The difference was a younger industry ( also a younger workforce, by the way ) with less regulation, less consolidation and much more competition. Much less risk aversion, too.
Even
with all the money in the world this is a dangerous business. It’s not only the
big things that can kill you, it’s the small things to. I can’t remember how
many people from Apollo I’ve heard say that if it weren’t for the soul searching
after Apollo 1, we probably would’ve never made it to the moon. The environment
that you work in and the energies involve to get there are extremely intolerant
requiring an extra level of reliability. That costs money.
We’re they under budget??
there was no budget, whatever it took to get it done
Which made it easier
Well that 1962 space project got carte blanche unlike all projects after it.
MAVEN launched on schedule and under budget. Unfortunately, this was considered an accomplishment. I would be happier if this was considered normal and expected.
Good point as well. I wonder if this is a case where I always just here the bad whereas there are many that keep their schedule?
No, unfortunately, you aren’t getting the wrong impression. As I said, the fact that MAVEN was on schedule and under budget was considered unusually good management (and work by all involved.) The norm is between just-on-time and late, and over.budget (although I admit some of budget numbers are debatable. E.g. is using all your reserve for unexpected problems being over budget? It’s certainly over the initial cost estimate, but that seems to be expected.)
I guess it depends on who is doing the counting, but the size of management reserve is just another measure of risk. I would never count it against the program.
There are a number of institutions which expect managers to spend down all reserves by launch. Not using it all is considered poor management. I don’t agree with that, but it is a fairly common view.
When someone figure out how to build reliable and safe rockets and other spacey devices, that’s when.
Every single thing that goes into space is more research than anything else.
I would say – when we hold contractors liable for underbidding just to get the contract and then overcharging to finish the project
Not that simple. NASA sells the mission to Congress at some promised cost. This is usually dishonestly low. Then NASA issues an RFP. Contractors, especially in industry, who bid accurately will lose since the price will not match the number given to Congress. The costs then climb into overrun, especially when the requirements and desirements not in the RFP/specification come in. NASA and/or NASA FFRDCs then point to any industry contractor as sleazy profiteers out to fleece honest scientists and the taxpayer.
please read FAR rules
I had to be familiar with the FAR, albeit with a lot of help from contracts and procurement experts, when I was active in the business. I believe, however, that my broader point – that NASA bears a lot of responsibility for overselling and then overrunning – is valid. Contractors don’t get a pass either. The entire procurement system is in dire shape.
At least the SLS, doesn’t have that risk, at least so far, since it has no defined mission.
In this case, didn’t Congress sell (in a manner of speaking) SLS to NASA?
They made Bolden an offer he couldn’t refuse.