Jump to content

NASA SLS/Orion/Payloads


_Augustus_

Recommended Posts

https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/23/space-launch-system-planetary-exploration-get-big-boosts-in-nasa-budget/

“The funds (for the second SLS mobile launch platform) also will allow flexibility for future NASA and other federal agency missions that will require heavy-lift capabilities beyond those of current launch vehicles as well as enable a sustainable Space Launch System launch cadence,”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

SLS will launch around Christmas 2019.

maxresdefault.jpg

On 12/6/2017 at 8:58 AM, tater said:

 

 

So... it will take between 2019 and 2023.  How specific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DAL59 said:

So... it will take between 2019 and 2023.  How specific.

They are aiming for the end of 2019, but people have been saying mid 2020 for a while because they have literally no slop in the schedule at this point. I'd expect it to be 2020, unless there is some delay in the SM that I am unaware of. The rest looks pretty on track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Canopus said:

With 2023 they probably meant the first manned flight, EM-2. 

Yeah, this is true. It is in a sense technically true for SLS and Orion as well, as it is the first REAL Orion flight (EM-2), as well as the first real SLS flight assuming they don't ever fly Block 1 again (which was the original plan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, this is true. It is in a sense technically true for SLS and Orion as well, as it is the first REAL Orion flight (EM-2), as well as the first real SLS flight assuming they don't ever fly Block 1 again (which was the original plan).

Is EM-1 not flying the whole working Orion spacecraft? Anyway i expect the will change the whole launch schedule after EM-1 now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, this is true. It is in a sense technically true for SLS and Orion as well, as it is the first REAL Orion flight (EM-2), as well as the first real SLS flight assuming they don't ever fly Block 1 again (which was the original plan).

Why didn’t they just go straight to Block 2, without wasting time on Block 1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

Why didn’t they just go straight to Block 2, without wasting time on Block 1?

Good question. I guess it sounded like a faster way to test the Spacecraft around the Moon, using an already tested stage.

Although i think they originally considered keeping the block 1 flying for some missions and only after they noticed the lack of funding and infrastructure, they decided to jump straight to block1b.

Edited by Canopus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Canopus said:

Is EM-1 not flying the whole working Orion spacecraft? Anyway i expect the will change the whole launch schedule after EM-1 now.

The short answer is no. The ECLSS isn't done. So it's way closer to real than a boilerplate, but it is not flight article. EM-2 will be every bit the "crew on the first flight" that STS was. First time on the complete stack (EUS will not have flown before), and first time with a flight article Orion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tater said:

The short answer is no. The ECLSS isn't done. So it's way closer to real than a boilerplate, but it is not flight article. EM-2 will be every bit the "crew on the first flight" that STS was. First time on the complete stack (EUS will not have flown before), and first time with a flight article Orion.

Unless they fly EM-2 on ICPS, which may well happen, or Europa Clipper flies first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, _Augustus_ said:

Unless they fly EM-2 on ICPS, which may well happen, or Europa Clipper flies first.

This is certainly true.

Then at least when they fly crew on EUS, only THAT will be untested, lol. Even a Block 1 EM-2 would have the crew on the first all-up Orion CSM, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay please don't take this question the wrong way.

Why do they need 5 Flights for the falcon heavy to be allowed to carry humans while SLS is allowed to do it on the second (or first, since the B version should differ quite a bit from the first version)? Are there different validation methods involved ? like, for example, SLS has larger safety margins to reduce failure chance?

Edited by hms_warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hms_warrior said:

Okay please don't take this question the wrong way.

Why do they need 5 Flights for the falcon heavy to be allowed to carry humans while SLS is allowed to do it on the second (or first, since the B version should differ quite a bit from the first version)? Are there different validation methods involved ? like, for example, SLS has larger safety margins to reduce failure chance?

Your last point is most likely on point: For SpaceX and Falcon 9, it is cheaper to do test flights, while for NASA and SLS, it is cheaper to do the paper work to skip the tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Canopus said:

Might this have something to do with Dragon 2s lower Abort thrust to weight ratio?

No, Dragon 2 has plenty of abort ability. It's just that SpaceX can freeze dev and run test flights pretty cheaply since they have a good launch cadence, so they chose the "validate by testing" approach rather than a much more time-consuming and expensive "validate by preparing a zillion reports on full-spectrum theoretical analyses".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

No, Dragon 2 has plenty of abort ability. It's just that SpaceX can freeze dev and run test flights pretty cheaply since they have a good launch cadence, so they chose the "validate by testing" approach rather than a much more time-consuming and expensive "validate by preparing a zillion reports on full-spectrum theoretical analyses".

They can also combine testing into other missions, so as not to completely waste an F92S.

But the bigger problem is that they really don't have a relyable paying customer for D2 and they have over 120 paying customers waiting in line for F9 and FH. Right now as satellites start reaching their RTL point thats a bottleneck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, sh1pman said:

Why didn’t they just go straight to Block 2, without wasting time on Block 1?

The plan was to increment development over time, flying Block 1 and building up to Block 2 through Block 1A or 1B. That plan was started something like five years ago or more, and assumed Block 1 would fly by 2017. As we all know, that didn't happen. By the time the delays started they should've cut their losses and abandoned Block 1.

Also, Block 2 was intended to use advanced boosters. Although it'll probably never be built.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

The plan was to increment development over time, flying Block 1 and building up to Block 2 through Block 1A or 1B. That plan was started something like five years ago or more, and assumed Block 1 would fly by 2017. As we all know, that didn't happen. By the time the delays started they should've cut their losses and abandoned Block 1.

Also, Block 2 was intended to use advanced boosters. Although it'll probably never be built.

If SLS flies long enough, i can see them using ATK's advanced boosters made from composites. They are already developing them for their Next Generation launcher. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Canopus said:

If SLS flies long enough, i can see them using ATK's advanced boosters made from composites. They are already developing them for their Next Generation launcher. 

I can only imagine how much more that is going to cost, tell me they aren't going to be made of carbon-fiber.

Quote

Later analysis showed the Block 1A configuration would result in high acceleration which would be unsuitable for Orion and could require a costly redesign of the Block 1 core.[59] In 2014, NASA confirmed the development of Block 1B instead of Block 1A and called off the 2015 booster competition.[28][60] In February 2015, it was reported that SLS is expected to fly with the five-segment SRB until at least the late 2020s, and modifications to Launch Pad 39B, its flame trench, and SLS's Mobile Launcher Platform were evaluated based on SLS launching with solid-fuel boosters.[28] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Boosters

So SRBs cannot be throttled down but the F1-B and AJ1E6 can be throttled down. So it looks like the they are no longer interested in the composite construction 4-segment SRBs.

Edited by PB666
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...