NASA Has Three Different Launch Dates for Humans on SLS
KSC meeting portrays SLS as scrambling for a manifest plan, NASASpaceFlight
“An “All-Hands” style meeting was held in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) on Monday, overviewing the spaceport’s current and future initiatives.
Payload concerns, high costs, and competition cloud future of NASA rocket, Ars Technica
“During the all-hands meeting, according to the report, Lightfoot told employees the space agency is considering moving humans off of EM-2 and onto EM-3. The reason he cited is NASA’s desire to use a more powerful upper stage on EM-2. For the EM-1 first test flight, NASA is using an “interim” upper stage, but, to use the interim stage for a crewed flight, NASA would have to spend $150 million or more to ensure it is reliable enough for humans. Because NASA may not want to fly crew members on the initial flight of its untested upper stage, EM-2 may have to be re-designated as a non-crewed mission as well. During the Florida meeting Lightfoot expressed his preference for launching a Europa spacecraft. This robotic mission has widespread support in Congress, but, as Ars has exclusively reported, it will not be ready to fly until the end of November, 2023, at the earliest. If that is the case, EM-3, the first mission to carry astronauts into space, would not occur until 2024 or 2025, long after initially promised.”
Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel Annual Report 2015, ASAP
“With its external stakeholders, primarily Congress, NASA executive management has committed to a 2023 EM-2 launch with a 70 percent schedule confidence level. However, NASA’s internal direction to the programs is to work to a 2021 EM-2 launch date, which has a schedule confidence level close to zero at requested funding levels. … Externally committing to a 2023 launch for EM-2 while making decisions based on a 2021 launch date is a risky situation, because safety could be unnecessarily compromised unless guiding safety principles are established and maintained.”
Keith’s note: So … NASA originally said that it needs SLS for the whole #JourneyToMars thing – just like Ares V. Then reality sets in (as it always does) and NASA’s response is to keep two sets of books – the internal set says that it will launch humans on SLS in 2021 while the public one aims for 2023. Now there’s a third set of books is being kept wherein a 2024-2025 launch date is being worked. But wait there’s more. Because HEOMD can’t get its own payloads ready to fly on the rocket that was designed to carry them, there’s a desperate rush to find something – anything – to fly on SLS. Right on cue Congress votes to require NASA to fly a Europa lander and to do so on SLS. Again, just like NASA started to do with Ares V when problems arose. Soon enough you’ll start to see a stealthy encroachment on SMD’s budget to help pay for SLS costs under the whole Europa thing. No doubt Congress will make yet another run at Commercial Crew and Cargo as well to free up some cash for SLS.
– GAO Finds NASA SLS Costs Not Credible, earlier post
– NASA Employs Faith-Based Funding Approach For SLS, earlier post
– NASA Delays First Crewed Orion Flight By Two Years, earlier post
– NASA Can’t Decide What SLS Engines It Does/Does Not Need, earlier post
Oh, crap. Is EM-2 threatened now?
EM-2 being crewed is threatened by NASA’s desire to use it first on EM-2. In general, it’s not a good idea to fly crew on top of an unflown design.
“In general, it’s not a good idea to fly crew on top of an unflown design.”
Except for Shuttle. And like every airplane ever.
It wasn’t necessarily a good idea for Shuttle. An unforseen reflection of the SRB ignition shock wave pushed the body flap 15 degrees from its launch position, producing pressures in the hydraulic lines which by all rights should have ruptured all three (redundancy does not protect against deterministic failures).
Thanks for that anecdote, Daniel. I was unaware. I always appreciate the high quality of your comments.
Yes, if control of the body flap was lost they would lose stability during entry. Ejection during ascent (as soon as they were high enough and before airspeed became excessive) would have been the only option. However the problem was not just STS-1. Because every flight was manned, no modification could be tested in unmanned flight and so was subject to interminable reviews and expenses. SpaceX and ULA use the same LVs for unmanned flights so can test mods more rapidly.
In addition to the problem already mentioned, there were other problems as well. No one really knew if the thermal protection system would hold up “in the real world” since there were issues with how the tiles were fastened to the orbiter and with how fragile they were (on STS-1 sixteen RCS tiles were lost completely and 148 RCS tiles were damaged). The issue with the fragility of the RCC used on the orbiter nose and wing leading edges tiles would ultimately be a contributing factor to the loss of the orbiter Columbia and its crew.
There was also a problem with the flight control system due to lack of actual flight data (see NASA Technical Memorandum 4500, Extraction of Stability and Control Derivatives From Orbiter Flight Data by Kenneth W. Iliff and Mary F. Shafer, June 1993). That issue was quite serious and it’s scary to think that it was only discovered by STS-1.
In the case of the space shuttle, simulations, tests on the ground, and subsonic glide tests really were not a complete substitute for an actual flight test. In the real world, there is no perfect substitute for flight testing.
Thanks for the TM memo, Jeff. I’ll make time to read it.
I was thinking about Kenneth W. Iliff in particular because I recently found out that he has passed away. 🙁
STS-1 was the first flight of a space vehicle and it has 2 people inside.
True. One always has to weigh the risks versus the benefits. How risky would it be to put astronauts on top of an unflown 2nd stage? How much of a benefit would be gained by putting astronauts on that flight? And finally, are the benefits worth the risk?
Certainly there is no such thing as perfect safety. We won’t be exploring other planets without accepting some level of risk.
But with SLS/Orion, I don’t see that the benefits would be worth flying astronauts on an untested stage. It’s not like NASA has Mars landers and HAB modules ready to go for a Mars mission, so delaying putting people on SLS/Orion does not seem to negatively impact a hypothetical Mars mission which is clearly many more years (decades?) off in the future.
The risk is the program gets canned due to a higher profile lack of progress. First question people asked after EFT-1: When are they going to fly humans on it?. After EM-1 will it be: When are they going to fly humans on it? They have to fly it three times before humans can go on it!?
The Falcon and Atlas will each fly at least 50 times before humans fly on them, yet it looks as though they will both accomplish this within a couple of years.
I guess the one thing I want is the first flight launches on schedule without weather or technical delays (yes, asking for the impossible). This so I can easily plan vacation time to watch this baby liftoff from Space View Park in Titusville (or better yet get a VIP at the viewing site by the VAB).
The April launch of the Falcon Heavy from pad 39a is coming up. Perfect spring break show.
https://www.youtube.com/wat…
Will they being going for landing of all three stages on this April flight
Yes, I believe that is the plan.
Not sure if the EA that was performed for LZ-1 covers that many returns. Anyone seen a new/updated EA for 2 or more Cape landings? If not- then, if you’re right- one on land and one/two on ASDS barge(s)
So what we have here are two projects, SLS and Orion, that will use up their yearly funding, while whining it is not enough to assure any completion date within give or take a few years.
When asked what is enough money – they won’t say that either, not wanting to have a promise hanging over their head.
When adding money, as this year, it gets easily soaked up into just vague notions of being helpful, versus actually resulting in firmer or sooner plans for completion.
So by 2028, and the end of ISS, which is rather TBD, we’d have had 3 or maybe 4 SLS flights, one or maybe two of them with crew. This is assuming the upper stage funding plus-up shows up regularly and more – as the amount this year is just a minor start on EUS, in the eyes of the program.
Then in late 2020 something, well lets just round off, in 2030-ish, some funding gets diverted over to some payload to perform some mission, perhaps finishing off module work, or some lander, by the 2040’s. And judging by the SLS/Orion tendencies, all cost-plus.
And if purchase power has been lost, meaning the freed up ISS dollars are not what they once were, or the workforce demographics aren’t exactly motivated to work on some mission that the new hires in 2030 will take all the credit for, well that’s just something we deal with along the way. Who needs margin after all!
Ahhh…yes, this is quite the space exploration plan here.
When I was 9 and looking up at the moon with the knowledge that two guys were walking around up there, the expectations were so different. We really should have colonies on Mars by now.
The way things worked out, I’ll qualify for Social Security (assuming it still exists) before they even fly astronauts on SLS. This decades-long miasma, product of an abiding absence of political will and vision, just ticks me off.
I just turned 60. I’ll be in line with you at the Social Security office.
I’ll be there years ahead of you.
Started Medicare 2 weeks ago. If I can see Bigelow serviced by commercial crew in space I’ll be very happy.
Medicare is a lovely thing, even for those who think that the government shouldn’t be in the business, isn’t it?
I’m not against government, Michael. I’m for lean, efficient, open government. I’ve got VA healthcare and now Medicare with Kaiser. Kaiser is unbelievably better than VA because it’s got a profit motive as opposed to a bloated bureaucracy where almost no one is held accountable for anything. It’s the difference between SLS/Orion and Falcon/Dragon. So I do like these public/private programs where there is competition and accountability. Glad to see that you’re feeling better.
Me too. I’ve lived in Florida long enough to have seen the mighty Saturn leave earth, a hopeful sign of a future in space.
But it was not to be. Apollo was dumped (largely) because it was very expensive- and shifting political support.
Colonies on Mars- or the Moon- aren’t in the cards, period. The costs would make Apollo look like chump change. Political will isn’t there either. It is not going to happen.
Far better to choose an achievable goal with the money we have. Or, we could send a couple of missions to Mars, then our grandkids could whine in 2050 or whatever about how disappointed they are.
The handwriting has been on the wall for 20++ years, folks.
Space expiration not exploration
Maybe the headline should be “NASA Really Has No Date for Humans on SLS”?
Can’t wait for Spring of 2017 Augustine III Commission report on the Future of Manned Space Flight! Exciting times ahead for NASA HSF!!!
I really think that the key point of Augustine was missed at the time (and I am as guilty of this as many other). The point seems to have been that NASA does not know how to build a HLV within a constrained budget. Indeed, even with an infinite budget, the overheads will swell, goldfish like, to absorb all funding and still produce little.
The time has come to use the COTS framework for NASA’s future crewed launcher. A vehicle with the following specifications must be delivered by the following date under the following budget, funding to be paid on the basis of milestones reached. Proposals to be sent to NASA HQ, Washington DC no later that the following date. We don’t care about the details – Engine type, subcontractor identities and the like. We want a rocket and we want it by the following date.
I guarantee that the proposals for a project with such little prospect of cost padding will not come from Big Defence.
“The time has come to use the COTS framework for NASA’s future crewed launcher”.
That time has already come. And gone. And it ain’t coming back, to paraphrase the Bard of New Jersey.
I agree. Now if only Congress did.
I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we stop low balling and over selling these programs to the public. Then at a later time we won’t have to do all sorts of mental and fiscal gymnastics to make the numbers come out right. I still think we need a high reliability heavy lift vehicle for future exploration of the solar system. Call it what you want SLS? Ares V? We need to build it, it’s going to cost real money to build, but when it’s done it’s going to give us a great deal of capability that we don’t have now. It will save us a ton of grief and maybe some lives by reducing the need for on orbit assembly. How much faster and easier could we have built the space station with a true heavy lift vehicle? But you certainly can’t do anything if you have shrinking budgets that aren’t realistic to the task proposed.
“I’ve got a great idea. Why don’t we stop low balling and over selling these programs to the public. Then at a later time we won’t have to do all sorts of mental and fiscal gymnastics to make the numbers come out right.”
Well, there are two problems with that. First, after years of overselling results and underestimating cost, they first time you’re honest, the public is going to wonder why they have to pay so much for so little (i.e. comparing it to past promises.)
Second, there is some competition going on. If the program you’re in favor of is completely honest about cost and results, do you think will happen if some competing program isn’t as honest? I don’t mean actual fraud, just making optimistic rather than pessimistic estimates. You need to build in some incentive to make people want to give their best estimates, not the optimistic ones, when they are trying to promote their programs.
A complete mess, I’m afraid. I just wish that, somehow, this whole stupid logjam (seemingly based on politics rather than any concrete operational need) could be cleared away!
This sounds like contingency planning on the part of NASA in an environment of uncertain budgets and slips in the design of new spacecraft. I don’t see anything nefarious here. It’s more like ‘thinking out loud’.
The way Wikipedia reads (yeah, I know…), John Young said if they had known about the flap being bent out like that, they would have ejected during ascent (resulting in total loss of vehicle), assuming that there would be no way to control the descent.