Should NASA cancel Block II SLS?

[fredinno]

Just now, Bill Phil said:

I was under the impression that Block II was effectively cancelled, but not officially.

Not yet, I don't think. We just haven't heard much about it and the advanced SRBs in a while.

[Bill Phil]

Just now, fredinno said:

Not yet, I don't think. We just haven't heard much about it and the advanced SRBs in a while.

I know an engineer working with SLS, I can ask him about it.

[Bill Phil]

It's possible that they might abandon Block II in favor of another configuration. BlockIIB, perhaps.

[tater]

I'd rather see them actually come up with a detailed manifest of what they should be launching first. Then, if they need 1-2 SLS launches per year, then go ahead. 

I still think NASA should buy rockets, not build rockets. Set a spec, then take bids.

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, tater said:

I still think NASA should buy rockets, not build rockets. Set a spec, then take bids.

o.0

That's exactly how NASA has procured rockets for decades.

[Bill Phil]

1 minute ago, DerekL1963 said:

o.0

That's exactly how NASA has procured rockets for decades.

NASA's designing them, though.

[DerekL1963]

Just now, Bill Phil said:

NASA's designing them, though.

That's pretty much only true of the Saturns and the Shuttle.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

I know an engineer working with SLS, I can ask him about it.

Ask him please.

2 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

It's possible that they might abandon Block II in favor of another configuration. BlockIIB, perhaps.

There is not Block IIB- only Block I, IB, and II. Block IA was removed quickly due to too high TWR.

1 hour ago, tater said:

I'd rather see them actually come up with a detailed manifest of what they should be launching first. Then, if they need 1-2 SLS launches per year, then go ahead. 

I still think NASA should buy rockets, not build rockets. Set a spec, then take bids.

We got close to one. It's subject to change though.

5 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

NASA's designing them, though.

Yes, since NASA designed the Atlas V, not LockMart...

[Guest]

Aren't the shuttle SRBs already reusable?  During the shuttle program, they recovered the SRBs, refurbished them, refused them, and then used them again.

[Mitchz95]

I'd love for SLS to finally get cancelled, or at least postponed until they have the payloads to justify it. But of course it's too late for that.

[fredinno]

 

2 hours ago, CliftonM said:

Aren't the shuttle SRBs already reusable?  During the shuttle program, they recovered the SRBs, refurbished them, refused them, and then used them again.

Not any more. They aren't being reused for the SLS.

[Bill Phil]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Ask him please.

There is not Block IIB- only Block I, IB, and II. Block IA was removed quickly due to too high TWR.

We got close to one. It's subject to change though.

Yes, since NASA designed the Atlas V, not LockMart...

I did ask him, and he mentioned Block IIb, whatever that is.

I meant that NASA's designing them in the particular cases of the launchers that NASA actually contracts for their purposes. Atlas V and DIV were/are USAF projects. Falcon 9 wasn't somethng NASA asked for, instead it was a proposal to one of NASA's commercial programs, and it is also the one with the most progress behind it.

3 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

That's pretty much only true of the Saturns and the Shuttle.

And the SLS, and all of the three are essentially the only rockets that NASA has/had specific programs for. And probably scout... Hmm...

Edited February 13, 2016 by Bill Phil

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, Bill Phil said:

I did ask him, and he mentioned Block IIb, whatever that is.

I meant that NASA's designing them in the particular cases of the launchers that NASA actually contracts for their purposes. Atlas V and DIV were/are USAF projects. Falcon 9 wasn't somethng NASA asked for, instead it was a proposal to one of NASA's commercial programs, and it is also the one with the most progress behind it.

And the SLS, and all of the three are essentially the only rockets that NASA has/had specific programs for. And probably scout... Hmm...

Apparently Block IIB is Block II, just under a different name. And there's a even bigger proposed upgrade using Advanced boosters and a J-2X upper stage.

NASA only ever designed Saturn, SLS, and the Shuttle. I don't know what you're talking about.

[Bill Phil]

37 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Apparently Block IIB is Block II, just under a different name. And there's a even bigger proposed upgrade using Advanced boosters and a J-2X upper stage.

NASA only ever designed Saturn, SLS, and the Shuttle. I don't know what you're talking about.

Yeah, BIIB is basically a downgraded BII. 

Scout was designed by NACA engineers right before it became NASA, and NASA continued the design until the mid 90s.

[fredinno]

10 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

Yeah, BIIB is basically a downgraded BII. 

Scout was designed by NACA engineers right before it became NASA, and NASA continued the design until the mid 90s.

No, IIB is what everyone usually causes Block II- confusing, but there isn't a Block IIB shown to the public- just Block II.

And Scout was designed when there was no launch industry.

[Bill Phil]

2 hours ago, fredinno said:

No, IIB is what everyone usually causes Block II- confusing, but there isn't a Block IIB shown to the public- just Block II.

And Scout was designed when there was no launch industry.

The scout was continually changed up to the 90s.

[tater]

18 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

o.0

That's exactly how NASA has procured rockets for decades.

My bad, I had always assumed the Michaud Assembly Facility assembled and wasn't fabricating (a horizontal VAB).

 

My principal concern with SLS period is payloads/mission. The current manifested manned missions are busywork, IMO*. New missions to slide into a launch cadence would need to be funded pretty much immediately for launches in the late '20s.

*Planetary science can be done better/cheaper by robots, the point of manned should honestly be more about the "human" aspirational aspects of space exploration, IMHO. This belongs more in a payload discussion, but payloads are what should drive SLS, instead of it being the other way around. I think the lunar surface is the obvious short-term choice for SLS/Orion, but the Moon (surface) is seemingly off the table. Orion is pretty much useless without something to dock to (3 weeks is a long time in a tiny room, and for duration missions, we have ISS).

[fredinno]

6 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

The scout was continually changed up to the 90s.

Yeah, those where upgrades to the boosters themselves, which were also used on Deltas for a while via Castor.

The rocket still kept its basic design until retirement to the Pegasus (which is now likely to retire, probably to SPARK and LauncherOne)

6 hours ago, tater said:

My bad, I had always assumed the Michaud Assembly Facility assembled and wasn't fabricating (a horizontal VAB).

 

My principal concern with SLS period is payloads/mission. The current manifested manned missions are busywork, IMO*. New missions to slide into a launch cadence would need to be funded pretty much immediately for launches in the late '20s.

*Planetary science can be done better/cheaper by robots, the point of manned should honestly be more about the "human" aspirational aspects of space exploration, IMHO. This belongs more in a payload discussion, but payloads are what should drive SLS, instead of it being the other way around. I think the lunar surface is the obvious short-term choice for SLS/Orion, but the Moon (surface) is seemingly off the table. Orion is pretty much useless without something to dock to (3 weeks is a long time in a tiny room, and for duration missions, we have ISS).

The current manifested missions are test missions (EM-1 (Orion unmanned BLEO test), EM-1A (SLS Block IB test), and EM-2 (SLS/Orion Block IB manned test), Europa Clipper (not 100% official until the White House and Congress come to an agreement, but almost certain) and ARM, which is the only one that really is "make work", since the entire thing could be done robotically with minimal extra cost (possibly cheaper).

Lunar Surface is actually NOT off the table- I've seen Boeing make lander proposals, and the advent of the next administration and requirement of an actual mission for SLS/Orion ASAP at relatively low cost (Lunar Surface and Lunar Orbital Station are the easiest and fastest/cheapest to implement) will likely push the Moon to the forefront of future missions.

[tater]

Nice to hear the moon isn't off the table, but my point stands regarding payloads. They want  block II, but they don't have a payload that even needs block I. Payload should be first. Having a "capability" would be fine if it was "piece work" and you'd make one when you needed it. Having to launch once a year to have that capability when you don't need it is goofy. Launching more than once per year if you don't actually need to is insane. 

ARM is a great example of making a robot mission needlessly expensive by adding "make work" for SLS/Orion.

How long would it actually take to develop block II? Meaning should they demonstrate they have an actual need first, since it's merely an evolution of block I?

[DerekL1963]

16 hours ago, fredinno said:

Lunar Surface is actually NOT off the table- I've seen Boeing make lander proposals

Boeing is a private company, not a government agency.  Boeing making unsolicited proposals means Boeing is looking for business, not that the Moon is on the table.

16 hours ago, fredinno said:

the advent of the next administration and requirement of an actual mission for SLS/Orion ASAP at relatively low cost (Lunar Surface and Lunar Orbital Station are the easiest and fastest/cheapest to implement) will likely push the Moon to the forefront of future missions.

Nobody (with any authority to do so) has established any requirements for an actual mission for either SLS or Orion.   Nor is anyone likely to do so any time soon (read: at the earliest, after ISS deorbit) because of the sharp rise in NASA budget that will be required.

2 hours ago, tater said:

my point stands regarding payloads. They want  block II, but they don't have a payload that even needs block I. Payload should be first. Having a "capability" would be fine if it was "piece work" and you'd make one when you needed it. Having to launch once a year to have that capability when you don't need it is goofy. Launching more than once per year if you don't actually need to is insane. 

*sigh*  Do folks not actually grasp that the Senate Launch System is nothing more than a vehicle to deliver pork to key Congressional districts and contractors?   Please, stop treating as if it's something NASA developed on it's own hook and is now a screwup because NASA doesn't have any payloads for it.

[tater]

4 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

*sigh*  Do folks not actually grasp that the Senate Launch System is nothing more than a vehicle to deliver pork to key Congressional districts and contractors?   Please, stop treating as if it's something NASA developed on it's own hook and is now a screwup because NASA doesn't have any payloads for it.

I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm arguing against SLS. Hence me saying that if NASA wanted/needed XXX MT in LEO, then, and only then would it be useful for them to develop a HLV. I share your view that it's stunning that people don't see this, which is the only reason I talk about payloads first---only build something you need.

Edited February 14, 2016 by tater

[DerekL1963]

58 minutes ago, tater said:

I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm arguing against SLS. Hence me saying that if NASA wanted/needed XXX MT in LEO, then, and only then would it be useful for them to develop a HLV. I share your view that it's stunning that people don't see this, which is the only reason I talk about payloads first---only build something you need.

Which is still (it seems to me, no offense) somewhat wide of the mark.   Developing SLS wasn't NASA's idea, and it's not their screwup that they got the order reversed - Congress ordered NASA to develop SLS, and dictated it's basic design.

NASA is truly between a rock and a hard place - it's an agency of the Executive Branch, but the Executive has almost totally ceeded authority over it to the Legislative Branch.

[fredinno]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Nice to hear the moon isn't off the table, but my point stands regarding payloads. They want  block II, but they don't have a payload that even needs block I. Payload should be first. Having a "capability" would be fine if it was "piece work" and you'd make one when you needed it. Having to launch once a year to have that capability when you don't need it is goofy. Launching more than once per year if you don't actually need to is insane. 

ARM is a great example of making a robot mission needlessly expensive by adding "make work" for SLS/Orion.

How long would it actually take to develop block II? Meaning should they demonstrate they have an actual need first, since it's merely an evolution of block I?

 

1 hour ago, DerekL1963 said:

Boeing is a private company, not a government agency.  Boeing making unsolicited proposals means Boeing is looking for business, not that the Moon is on the table.

Nobody (with any authority to do so) has established any requirements for an actual mission for either SLS or Orion.   Nor is anyone likely to do so any time soon (read: at the earliest, after ISS deorbit) because of the sharp rise in NASA budget that will be required.

*sigh*  Do folks not actually grasp that the Senate Launch System is nothing more than a vehicle to deliver pork to key Congressional districts and contractors?   Please, stop treating as if it's something NASA developed on it's own hook and is now a screwup because NASA doesn't have any payloads for it.

When a rocket very obviously lacks a payload+goal, they would have to develop one for it- considering nearly everyone who's looked at the program has said that, Congress probably knows. They obviously don't care as much, but if 2023 comes and there is no payload to launch on it (after Europa Clipper, and possibly JUICE launch on SLS) then NASA will look like idiots- but so will Congress, since they mandated the program.

[DerekL1963]

15 minutes ago, fredinno said:

if 2023 comes and there is no payload to launch on it (after Europa Clipper, and possibly JUICE launch on SLS) then NASA will look like idiots- but so will Congress, since they mandated the program.

Given that space fanbois can't seem to get and keep the difference straight, I seriously doubt the American public will be able to either.   Doubly so given their general lack of ability to discern the difference between Congress having their thumb on the scales and effing up the result and screw ups or inefficiency on the part of the actual organization.  With very few rare exceptions, it's the organization (like NASA or the National Park Service) that get the blame.

[tater]

Derek, any perceived distance between your POV and mine regarding SLS/Orion is poor use of language on my part. I agree with you 100% on where the fault lies. NASA is indeed between a rock and a hard place.