Modifying A Modified Mobile Launcher That Will Be Used Once
Citing safety, NASA panel advises building a new, costly mobile launcher, Ars Technica (link fixed)
“A 2012 report from NASA’s inspector general estimated the costs of building a new mobile launcher then at $122 million, but a new structure expressly for the larger Block 1B rocket to be used for the second flight of the SLS rocket would almost certainly cost more. Additionally, If NASA builds a new mobile launcher, the modified one now being configured for the first SLS flight would likely be used just once–a waste of infrastructure that cost perhaps half a billion dollars and more than a decade of development.”
– Modifying The Modified Mobile Launcher (2013), earlier post
– Modifying The Modified Mobile Launcher (2013), earlier post
– CEV Mobile Launcher Solicitation (2012), earlier post
– Space Shuttle Program Hands over Launch Platform to Constellation (2009), earlier post
– NASA Awards Contract for Ares I Mobile Launcher (2008), earlier post
– OIG on Ares 1 Mobile Launcher Mods (2007), earlier post
– NASA KSC Solicitation: Construction of Constellation Crew Launch Vehicle Mobile Launcher (2007), earlier post
Just another example of our governments and cultures awesome sustainable, frugal, efficient and long term planning and action at work. Oh and then there is all that wasted time and trash created. Arghhh.
The link is wrong.
Is there no one left at NASA that has any sense of duty to country/fiscal responsibility? Is everything about appeasing congress/contractors? Is there anyone with any backbone who is willing to push back on these sorts of things?
I feel like NASA’s wasteful spending is like Battlestar: “It has happened before, and will happen again…”
Only it shouldn’t. What’s the National Debt now? 20 Trillion? God help our kids.
One big spend for a platform- One Giant Spend for Contractor Kind.
NASA can exercise initiative on lower profile programs, but in human spaceflight it is constrained by the direction it receives from two sometimes conflicting masters, the president and Congress. Congress initiated the SLS/Orion program (over the opposition of former president Obama) and controls it through legislation.
Congress didn’t appear to Michael Griffin in a vision and tell him to stick humans on top of an SRB. This entire disaster stems from not using EELV to lift capsules.
No one ought to pay attention to a single word that ignorant man says. Actually, I’m wrong. Whatever he says is always wrong, so I guess he is useful in a fashion.
Yes, the Orbital Space Plane (OSP) Program was fine in terms of providing access to the ISS after the Shuttle. Indeed, the Boeing CST-100 is base on the design they offered NASA in the OSP.
But no, Dr. Griffin had a better idea…
The Columbia Accident Investigation Board report also features a picture of the OSP concept, and concluded that a simple vehicle designed solely for LEO access was the most reasonable Shuttle replacement. Unfortunately the Orion, despite its similar overall size, ended up too heavy for the Atlas, the Ares I or the airbag landing system. The CST, by keeping its weight down, ended up using not only the Atlas but also the air bags originally designed for the Orion.
There was no error in Mike Griffin’s choices on the Orion capsule’s mass and diameter. It was deliberately make too heavy and wide for almost all EELV configurations. Otherwise why would you need the Ares-1.
Did congress mandate which crawler to fund? Serious question.
NASA doesn’t spend money to build rockets, they build rockets to spend money. A subtle but significant difference.
Just a drop in the bucket of the $40 Billion being spent on SLS, Orion and ksc over 17+ years just to get to first crewed test flight in 202X. How much longer will these budgetary albatrosses continue to be anchors around the agency’s neck keeping us in the shallow water of Leo and no further. One can only hope that this 45 day Moon study requested by the president council will take an open assessment of available and realistic near term hardware and not constrain themselves to just the stay the course SLS/Orion path.
Would it matter? Obama didn’t like SLS/Orion either, and Trump seems to have even less pull with Congress than he did. Congress will do what Congress will do.
Help us Falcon Heavy…you’re our only hope!
There is another. The immense factory in which Blue will build the Glenn is nearly complete on Space Commerce Blvd. Who will emerge victorious? Musk or Bezos? One thing is certain, not one, but two commercial HLVs will soon be blasting off on a monthly, possibly weekly basis.
Yes, and the great thing about Blue Origins is that although they are more then happy to have customers for their rockets, Jeff Bezos is actually building them so he will be able to build factories in space.
So his model is more like the early railroads in England, which were built by the owners of coal mines to get their coal to the cities to sell. Then they used the surplus capacity to carry passengers and freight.
“Safe, simple, and soon!”
The more I read about SLS and stuff like this, the more I’m convinced that NASA management and congress have completely lost their minds.
Yes, the Swamp is all its glory!
I am not going to address the SLS vs. others battle here. It quickly becomes illogical with acquisitions of stupidity, incompetence, greed, graft, etc. (as seen here). The only thing in that battle that applies is that we should remember that all launch vehicles are developed to support a defined set of mission architectures. SLS has one set, Blue another, Falcon another, etc. The exception is Musk’s BFR which does everything including point-to-point aviation.
What is seen here is the logical (you may not like it but logical) result of a program where the schedule is too long, the funding too little, flights too infrequent and the mission architecture changes. The Aries-1 is history so we have the advantage of understanding how shortsighted we were to build the demo vehicle and the ML. The SLS Block x vehicles all have different configurations. The program does not have enough money in it to shorten the development and the time between missions allowing for one ML configuration. You cannot wait until the next block change is defined to build what you need for the current mission.
Get comfortable with that. With the projected and funded flight rates for Orion, SLS, and Deep Space Exploration there will be lots of time to redesign things because of safety epiphanies, technology changes, obsolescence, and relearning the skills every vehicle. And, as shown in the ML case, the mission will change.
BTW – these construction projects are done in the most commercial manner of any NASA procurements. They are generally Brooks Act compliant contracts.
The Falcon and Glenn seem to me to be relatively general-purpose launch vehicles, not designed specifically to meet the requirements of any single mission. Rather the mission has the choice of adapting itself to the vehicle or paying a lot more and waiting a lot longer for a custom design. General purpose design allows the vehicles to maintain a reasonable flight rate. This was the plan for the EELV program as well, unfortunately the cost was too high for the commercial market.
The high cost of the SLS derives also from its use of heritage hardware and facilities including the SRBs, SSMEs, MLP, crawler, and VAB, which require large and expensive facilities and are expensive to process. Clean sheet design does not guarantee low cost, as we saw with the Delta IV, but it at least provides the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of the past.
If SpaceX continues launching various payloads from both the Cape and Vandy, and successfully recovering the first stage, the drive-by media and the general public are going to pay as much attention as they do to a commercial airline flight…until, of course, something goes wrong…or they send a crew to the Moon! 😀 Watch out, NASA, the mammals are scurrying around under the feet of the big dinosaurs!
Go SpaceX! Go Blue Origin!
When has Glenn Launched ???
The Mobile Launcher has 4 sides, why not modify it now to accept both SLS versions: ie built to handle the heavier loads of 1B but have separate umbilical attachments? If infeasible, why not skip launching with the ICPS and make the 1st launch a 1B launch. Sure, the 1st flight is delayed, but the overall program moves ahead more quickly and we don’t have a payload aside from Orion ready yet anyway.
Please stop thinking logically.
I have this suspicion it might make it too large for the crawler
Dropping the EM-1 flight (currently the only one with the ICPS) has been suggested, but it would be politically problematic.
On a related note, does anyone know if LC-39B will still be able to launch the Falcon 9, after it’s reconfigured for the Falcon Heavy?
I assume you mean LC-39A (39B is SLS pad).
They can still launch Falcon 9 from it, it’s the only pad that can support Crew Dragon after all. But to switch between Falcon 9 and Heavy they’ll need to install/remove some plates on the launch table.
39A. 39B is the “ostensibly multi-user, but actually just SLS” pad.
And yes, it will.
I believe you mean LC-39A (39B is for SLS). I don’t know any technical details, but TESS and all of the CCP Falcon 9 flights are manifested from 39A after Falcon Heavy flies, so I think it’s the current plan.