EM-1 Crewed study completed

[_Augustus_]

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasas-study-of-adding-crew-to-em-1-is-completed-awaiting-response

I say they should do it if it doesn't delay the mission into 2020. Orion has a LES.

[ZooNamedGames]

I agree. Even if SLS does fail and requires the use of a LES, it's fantastic science data since there's only been one recorded use of a LES in history outside of hardware testing (proving the LES works). Not to mention the explosion would force a contingency operation that would put NASA's facilities to the test of a failure of this magnitude. Not to mention PR for returning past LEO alongside Musk proving NASA isn't behind anymore.

Just tons and tons of reasons to that I can think of to go manned for EM-1.

[Gaarst]

26 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I agree. Even if SLS does fail and requires the use of a LES, it's fantastic science data since there's only been one recorded use of a LES in history outside of hardware testing (proving the LES works). Not to mention the explosion would force a contingency operation that would put NASA's facilities to the test of a failure of this magnitude.

If SLS fails on its first launch, consider the program to be over. Especially if it is manned.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Gaarst

[ZooNamedGames]

6 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

If SLS fails on its first launch, consider the program to be over. Especially if it is manned.

That's what congress thought after Apollo 1. They saw it as extraneous, dangerous, and problem ridden between the conflicts of NAA and NASA along with the engineering problems of the vehicle.

However it appears that despite a fatal first... leg lift (does a plugs out test even count as a step?), the program managed to overcome and succeed.

Just sayin.

[Gaarst]

8 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

That's what congress thought after Apollo 1. They saw it as extraneous, dangerous, and problem ridden between the conflicts of NAA and NASA along with the engineering problems of the vehicle.

However it appears that despite a fatal first... leg lift (does a plugs out test even count as a step?), the program managed to overcome and succeed.

Just sayin.

Good point. But SLS doesn't have the public/political support Apollo had. It painfully passed government approval over arguments that it could reuse Space Shuttle hardware and facilities, but I feel like the program is very frail.

[ZooNamedGames]

7 minutes ago, Gaarst said:

Good point. But SLS doesn't have the public/political support Apollo had. It painfully passed government approval over arguments that it could reuse Space Shuttle hardware and facilities, but I feel like the program is very frail.

History tells us what is strong and what is not. Apollo was also frail but now it's looked to as the pinnacle of NASA's success when in the early stages NASA was not proud of Apollo's work. 

So only time will tell.

[tater]

Apollo was not as frail as sls. SLS is a dead man walking, IMO. Unlike Apollo, SLS has never had any mission at all, and it requires 2 a year.

[Capt. Hunt]

Apollo was rushing to keep up with Kennedy's by the end of the decade mandate, there was no way they would have stopped at that point short of some catastrophic design flaw in the Saturn V.  Sadly, SLS doesn't have that.

[sevenperforce]

I just really can't see SLS being used for...anything, really.

[passinglurker]

Unlike apollo SLS doesn't have a german rocket scientist with a disney movie deal or scary commies actively trying to one up us to drive the public interest in space so if anything goes wrong with SLS out of the block the program is as good as sunk even if they try to figure out what went wrong and salvage it its next flight would be delayed for so long it may be rendered obsolete.
 

9 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

I just really can't see SLS being used for...anything, really.

Wide loads.

Nasa's interplanetary ambitions revolve around solar electric propulsion casting off from a lunar orbit with a low escape velocity (which is a sensible plan budget wasting pork rocket aside). This plan needs very very large solar arrays and ideally the fewer times you have to fold them to get them to fit in the fairing the better.

Though conceivably vulcan or new glenn could be evolved to have 8m fairings it's just such a specially use case nasa would be paying a premium for them.

Edited April 24, 2017 by passinglurker

[Motokid600]

Id say if EM-1 fails and the crew lives a successful launch abort could be spun into something positive to keep the program going. Political support or not Apollo 1 sadly resulted in three deaths.          ...Unless something happens in space with the CSM then theres real problems. : /  Im sure the rocket will be fine, but is it wise to rush the CSM?

Edited April 24, 2017 by Motokid600

[cantab]

As I see it EM-1 can be a mission to lunar orbit or a crewed mission. It should not be both. If the spacecraft fails while it's beyond LEO, there is no contingency and no backup. The astronauts on Apollo 13 survived because the Lunar Module provided redundant systems, something that had been considered in general if not in detail prior to the Apollo missions. Orion has none of that,

[tater]

1 hour ago, passinglurker said:

Though conceivably vulcan or new glenn could be evolved to have 8m fairings it's just such a specially use case nasa would be paying a premium for them.

NG with a typical payload fairing (vs the flush one they will have) would basically equal SLS in that regard. Likely not an accident.

Regarding NASA paying a premium... they are already paying a premium for SLS. The first launch will end up costing what? 20 Billion? More? Keeping the lights on in SLS land is expected to be at least 2 B$ a year, with a marginal cost of 500 M$ or something? So shuttle prices, 1.5 B$/launch, not counting any payload. I'd say that's a premium cost vehicle.

If we had 2 or more huge launches worth of stuff per year, I'd be OK with SLS. Building it, and keeping the program going with no payloads is insanity, IMO.

[sevenperforce]

11 minutes ago, tater said:

NG with a typical payload fairing (vs the flush one they will have) would basically equal SLS in that regard. Likely not an accident.

Regarding NASA paying a premium... they are already paying a premium for SLS. The first launch will end up costing what? 20 Billion? More? Keeping the lights on in SLS land is expected to be at least 2 B$ a year, with a marginal cost of 500 M$ or something? So shuttle prices, 1.5 B$/launch, not counting any payload. I'd say that's a premium cost vehicle.

If we had 2 or more huge launches worth of stuff per year, I'd be OK with SLS. Building it, and keeping the program going with no payloads is insanity, IMO.

Agreed, since I cannae like.

Of course, if the first flight of SLS goes boom, it's probably curtains for the program whether there is crew on it or not.

[tater]

Dunno, there's always the sunk cost fallacy to rely on, lol.

[sevenperforce]

7 minutes ago, tater said:

Dunno, there's always the sunk cost fallacy to rely on, lol.

WHY CAN I NOT LIKE ANY OF THESE

[razark]

EM-1 will not be a crewed flight.

 

Acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot:

Quote

NASA appreciates the energy, creativity, and depth of engineering and program analysis that was brought to the decision, but ultimately, the decision was made not to fly crew on the first flight after weighing the data and assessing all implications. However, the work we did on this evaluation will flow into our planning for the next two years. We look forward to using this information to strengthen our EM-2 posture.

 

We are grateful for the near-term flexibility offered by the FY 2017 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and we are confident that we remain technically capable of launching crew on EM-1. However, after evaluating cost, risk, and technical factors in a project of this magnitude, it is difficult to accommodate changes needed for a crewed EM-1 mission at this time.