Limited SLS Options Ahead?
Listening to @NASA community feedback It would seem that there are almost as many people at NASA who are worried about promising a 2020 launch date for EM-1 on @NASA_SLS as there are people who are against a commercial EM-1 option because of what it means for the future of SLS. pic.twitter.com/EQAglfCc1s
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) March 25, 2019
Maybe some people actually read the Rogers and CAIB reports, and what they said about schedule pressure. And actually paid attention to it this time.
The CAIB report presciently recommends that the Shuttle replacement be designed solely for human access to LEO; at the time they were referring primarily to the Orbital Space Plane project, a predecessor of Commercial Crew. The reason for this caution was clearly spelled out. The US government was unlikely to have the resources to safely accomplish a more ambitious (lunar or Mars) manned mission, at least not until lower cost technologies were developed.
Why would I develop a payload to fly on shuttle technology that is dangerous when I can fly for less, and more safely, on a commercially available vehicle.
We should build two Europa Clippers to launch on the same Falcon Heavy two weeks apart.
We do not need SLS or Orion for human space flight, exploration, and settlement.
Or the mission could simply use a slower trajectory and an existing launch vehicle.
The key roadblock seems to be the tank?
Orion flight test in December, 2014!
SRB test in March, 2015
SSME 500 second test in July, 2015 (first of several)
Service Module December, 2018
It sounds like the core stage won’t be ready until six months from now (at best) even though it’s been in development for 8 years.
What flew in 2014 was not a real Orion, mainly a prototype shell with some limited attitude control and a recovery system. Even the next one will be stripped down and not fully functional. They don’t get to that point until the first manned vehicle.
Not any reason to expect an SLS/Orion flight in 2021. That is still nearly 3 years away. At the rate they have been going that date will slip another 2-3 years. You really have to ask why it has taken so long and been so expensive; especially SLS. The engines are Shuttle engines. The boosters are relatively minimally modified Shuttle boosters. Mainly they have been designing and building a fuel tank. They have never integrated the system together to test it if there are problems I’d guess that is likely where they will occur. They’ve not even gotten to that point yet. 2025 is looking better all the time.
I think you are right. They keep asking for another year or two, but what they really want is 10 years and another $20 billion in development.
You are incorrect. NASA tinker with all the parts so they are more expensive and not quite what was flown on the shuttle.
The engines have been modified with new engine controller from the RS-68. So basically a new engine.
The solid booster got one additional segment added. Which means a new booster.
The propellant tank is fabricated using a different method in a new vertical welding machine that have to be rebuild due to faulty setup to the foundation. They scrapped the tooling for the old external propellant tank previously.
However the biggest huddle is how behind they are with the software for the SLS using legacy programming languages cobbling out something with previous software and newly written software. NASA is having issues with finding and holding on software talent who can work with the legacy software.
So NASA could be lucky the first SLS Block 1 might fly by late 2023 or never. IMO
The evidence is plain for all to see. NASA can no longer design or develop anything. They are wasting time and money and do not even have a logically laid out plan-for anything. Its time to refocus NASA on some job they might be able to accomplish. Really telling to see how far NASA has fallen even in just the few years since Shuttle.
With ULA discussing a Centaur upper stage on a Falcon Heavy, why do we need the SLS core stage for Orion?
We do however need to find a way to use the SRBs on something (to protect the solids industry in the US).
CAIB said separate cargo and crew. SLS ignores that recommendation.
At 3 billion + a year and one launch every 18-24 months think how many commercial heavy rockets could NASA buy/launch for that money and how much more often
There is no plethora of launches on the schedule for Orion whose flights would be disrupted by a delayed EM-1 launch. There is NO reason for the cobbled together commercial EM-1 launch EXCEPT to give Trump/Pence a BIG launch before the 2020 elections. Period. You can bet they are behind this idea. Bridenstine is just humoring them.
Well, if that (Trump/Pence..) shakes up the NASA status quo, I’m all for it.=)