[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

The "official" green run estimate is 6-9 months. The longest unofficial estimate I've heard is 12 months. Either way, I think that makes mid-2021 a reasonable estimate.

I think it's a reasonable target date. The trouble is wanting a real date that won't slip. Course if it even matters or not for Bridenstine depends on issues outside his control (ie: will he still have a job in that timeframe).

[tater]

 

[tater]

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by tater

[tater]

This belongs here as well.

 

[jadebenn]

NASA is stating its intention to block-buy 10 SLS cores and 8 EUS stages from Boeing:

NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions With More SLS Rocket Stages

Will this finally kill the "SLS will only fly once" meme?

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, jadebenn said:

NASA is stating its intention to block-buy 10 SLS cores and 8 EUS stages from Boeing:

NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions With More SLS Rocket Stages

Will this finally kill the "SLS will only fly once" meme?

Depends. How much money is actually allocated?

[tater]

3 hours ago, jadebenn said:

NASA is stating its intention to block-buy 10 SLS cores and 8 EUS stages from Boeing:

NASA Commits to Future Artemis Missions With More SLS Rocket Stages

Will this finally kill the "SLS will only fly once" meme?

NASA was committed to Constellation, too. They were committed to Mars. Their funding is controlled by Congress, and unless Congress writes a check right now for the total value of all 10 cores, the idea that this is somehow definitive is silly. It will continue to be funded as long as it continues to be funded. That's about all anyone rational can say. If it is entirely obviated at some point, even Congress will have to come around. The sooner that happens, the better (I look forward to anyone arguing that we'd all be better off if no one comes up with technology that makes SLS look like a waste of time).

Out of curiosity, where is this "SLS will only fly once" meme, exactly? I haven't really encountered it.

[ZooNamedGames]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Out of curiosity, where is this "SLS will only fly once" meme, exactly? I haven't really encountered it.

I'm seeing it a lot on Twitter. Though it's just a lot of mindless insanity there. I've tried to have KSP forum level discussions but that's just not feasible.

[tater]

22 minutes ago, ZooNamedGames said:

I'm seeing it a lot on Twitter. Though it's just a lot of mindless insanity there. I've tried to have KSP forum level discussions but that's just not feasible.

From actual space people, or just randos? I don't bother with the latter. Look at the people in Congress. Aderholt (AL) is clearly clueless. He asks about contingencies if commercial LVs are not available for Artemis elements, then Bridenstine mentions FH, and others coming up soon (2 built or partially built in his own State), and Aderholt seems to not be aware that FH has flown 3 times already. He's a low-grade moron.

Edited October 16, 2019 by tater

[ZooNamedGames]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

From actual space people, or just randos? I don't bother with the latter. Look at the people in Congress. Aderholt (AL) is clearly clueless. He asks about contingencies if commercial LVs are not available for Artemis elements, then Bridenstine mentions FH, and others coming up soon, and Aderholt seems to not be aware that FH has flown 3 times already. He's a low-grade moron.

Sadly I only draw the attention of the latter. Though you are right, both randos and congress members are a bit clueless on the subject sadly. I wish I could talk space to more reputable people.

[tater]

Serrano said that NASA would do better to aim for 2028 as they had previously.

While I applaud Bridenstine for trying to push things forward, Serrano isn't wrong. I can't imagine 2024 actually happening, it's always been nuts. First EUS flight and first test of lander to a difficult (compared to Apollo 11) landing site, when the upper stage and the lander don't even exist yet?

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

Serrano said that NASA would do better to aim for 2028 as they had previously.

While I applaud Bridenstine for trying to push things forward, Serrano isn't wrong. I can't imagine 2024 actually happening, it's always been nuts. First EUS flight and first test of lander to a difficult (compared to Apollo 11) landing site, when the upper stage and the lander don't even exist yet?

I'm realistically expecting 2025/2026. But for a large part of SLS' lifetime, it has been meeting goals and progressing milestones. The vehicle itself was just there to buy NASA time- there was no interest or passion behind what it was for. Bridenstine has at least given the industry a passion, a focus and a drive beyond "let's meet X's timeline". Honestly if those building the rocket aren't hyped over their work, then I don't know how any other part would be worth any interest.

So maybe 2024 is a bit optimistic but at least it's giving the right people a push in the right direction to make it 3 years late behind the 2024 goal, rather than 3 years late behind the 2028 goal. Which, knowing NASA, will be the case if we give them that much down time. 

[tater]

The Congressional SLS supporters would be well served to push hard for rapid use of the LV, since if they were really aiming for 2028, the chances that it looks silly (and extremely wasteful) only increase.

NG can loft Orion to LEO with margin, or indeed Orion and a substantial comanifested cargo. With distributed launch, Artemis could stage from LEO. The reality is that (forgetting SpaceX, which is obviously a silly thing to do) BO alone will make SLS look sorta goofy, and at the cost to the taxpayer of zero (unless you count the positive of any capital gains tax implications of Bezos selling a billion in stock every year, which makes it look like the government is getting paid to develop this stuff).

[ZooNamedGames]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

The Congressional SLS supporters would be well served to push hard for rapid use of the LV, since if they were really aiming for 2028, the chances that it looks silly (and extremely wasteful) only increase.

NG can loft Orion to LEO with margin, or indeed Orion and a substantial comanifested cargo. With distributed launch, Artemis could stage from LEO. The reality is that (forgetting SpaceX, which is obviously a silly thing to do) BO alone will make SLS look sorta goofy, and at the cost to the taxpayer of zero (unless you count the positive of any capital gains tax implications of Bezos selling a billion in stock every year, which makes it look like the government is getting paid to develop this stuff).

I don't know if requesting 10 is a logical decision personally since by 2035 SLS, even with a new Block II version (or a Block III version) SLS will be entirely antiquated by other LVs. Maybe they intend on multi-launching SLS, otherwise the 1 launch a year rate will run SLS into NG&BFR/SS operation which almost entirely eclipses SLS offerings. 

[tater]

Some are pushing for all SLS for Artemis. Saying they want 10 is easy, and costs nothing at all, so why not? Congress won't fund any that far in advance.

The entire idea that saying they want 10 is meaningful is like if I tell you the sort of dream house with a Bondian villain like submarine base in the bottom I'm going to buy when I win the lottery.

[ZooNamedGames]

Just now, tater said:

dream house with a Bondian villain like submarine base in the bottom I'm going to buy when I win the lottery.

And it'd work if it weren't for Bond, James Bond. 

 

[jadebenn]

2 hours ago, tater said:

NASA was committed to Constellation, too.

Constellation never even got past PDR. The lander is in the same boat as CxP. Everything else is muuuch further on.

2 hours ago, tater said:

Out of curiosity, where is this "SLS will only fly once" meme, exactly?

You're a lucky one. Then again, if you mainly stick to these forums, I wouldn't be too surprised. The quality of discussion here is pretty good. Off-site... it's not.

You don't hear it as often nowadays, but you used to be able to hear it pretty often on the SpaceX subreddits. Even now you still can, occasionally.

[sevenperforce]

2 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Constellation never even got past PDR. The lander is in the same boat as CxP. Everything else is muuuch further on.

Constellation actually did a test launch.

[jadebenn]

4 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

Constellation actually did a test launch.

It was a test launch in the same way that Starhopper is - more of an aerodynamic analysis with something vaguely shaped like the flight hardware than a test of the actual rocket.

Ares I-X (which I'm presuming is what you're referring to) carried a dummy Orion on-top of a dummy upper-stage, with a dummy fifth segment on-top of a real four-segment Shuttle SRB. There was basically zero part commonality with the real deal.

That's not to say that useful data wasn't found from the test, but it wasn't really a launch of the rocket.

Edited October 16, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

23 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Constellation never even got past PDR. The lander is in the same boat as CxP. Everything else is muuuch further on.

Ares-1 boilerplate test.^^

While SLS is certainly farther on than its predecessor, Ares V, saying they want to buy 10 is meaningless without a check written. If there is no budget, it's just a CR, and it's not funded. If they are on core 4, and there is no money added for core 5, it doesn't matter how many they say they wanted. Course at that poijnt they start needing engines, having thrown the Shuttle engines all into the sea at that point.

 

Quote

You're a lucky one. Then again, if you mainly stick to these forums, I wouldn't be too surprised. The quality of discussion here is pretty good. Off-site... it's not.

You don't hear it as often nowadays, but you used to be able to hear it pretty often on the SpaceX subreddits. Even now you still can, occasionally.

It's hardly a meme. It's not really here (SLS bashing is entirely different from saying it will fly once), it's not at NSF (flying once, no, bashing, yes (because bashing SLS is pretty easy, frankly)). I've been on NSF for a long time, though I tend to lurk. A buddy of mine has been at NSF a loong time, and I'd simply have him brief me over coffee every few months, lol (he used to write space stuff for ars, actually).

Reddit is useful sometimes, but I have always hated the threading, so I don't hang there much.

Twitter? I follow space people. Some SLS bashing (hard not to), I don't recall seeing that even once, much less many times, but I have likely seen it and don't remember.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by tater

[jadebenn]

2 minutes ago, tater said:

Course at that poijnt they start needing engines, having thrown the Shuttle engines all into the sea at that point.

Aerojet's actually already on contract for those.

[tater]

1 minute ago, jadebenn said:

Aerojet's actually already on contract for those.

How much are they costing? The (better, they needed to be reused) SSMEs were 40M$ or so (each).

Also, the contract for core stages is pretty provisional. Then there is political reality and an election coming up... this is one reason to be a private space fanboy. Musk and Bezos are going to do what they want to do, ferociter in one case, and gradatim in the other, but neither will stop, and both are persuing particular, long term goals in a way that is simply impossible for NASA. I don't envy Bridenstine.

[jadebenn]

25 minutes ago, tater said:

How much are they costing? The (better, they needed to be reused) SSMEs were 40M$ or so (each).

It's basically impossible to seperate out the unit costs of the first six RS-25Es due to how the production restart contract is structured.

The goal for everything past that first batch is a 30% cost reduction over the SSMEs. All the reports I've seen state that they're on-track for that.

25 minutes ago, tater said:

Also, the contract for core stages is pretty provisional.

It's only provisional until there's ink on paper later this year, before any elections or administration changes.

Edited October 16, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

25 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

It's basically impossible to seperate out the unit costs of the first six RS-25Es due to how the production restart contract is structured.

The goal for everything past that first batch is a 30% cost reduction over the SSMEs. All the reports I've seen state that they're on-track for that.

1.5 B$ for 6, and that's after the 1.16 B$ for makign them easier to make?

Quote

“A recent, parametric estimate performed by NASA suggests that just the design cost for creating and certifying an RS-25 equivalent engine would be approximately $2.23 billion, which is 40 percent greater than the total estimated cost of this procurement action to acquire six RS-25 flight-ready engines.”

Well, that might be the design cost, but after that investment, a reasonable cost per engine should be what? 2 M$? 3? Raptor is about that right now, with production estimated to bring it down towards a few hundred thousand per engine. Raptor is very close to the RS-25 in thrust (worse in I_sp, obviously, not burning hydrogen). There's little reason why any engine should even be costing 10s of millions that only needs to ever fire for a few hundred seconds in a row. NASA should be asking AJR to aim for a 10X reduction in original SSME cost (so aim for 4 M$).

 

Quote

It's only provisional until there's ink on paper later this year, before any elections or administration changes.

If they (NASA) don't have an out, we're all being ripped off. It would be far easier to be supportive of SLS if it wasn't for this sort of ugly payoff to the usual suspects. Stuff like this makes me almost want to root for something I never want to see when I watch a launch (sans crew, obviously). (I should add that the fact that I even thought this horrifies me, I want all rockets to fly, but I also want funds used to the best possible outcome, and this is just "yuck.")

Edited October 16, 2019 by tater

[tater]

Asked a friend who is a lawyer about contracts like this. He said he used to know the answer, but would have to look it up. More recently, he was writing contracts for the State (he worked for a State organization before), and he said for the State there were limited to 4 years for any contracts, and as he represented the interests of that particular organization, all contracts were contingent on funding, otherwise if funding was not granted, the org would be on the hook, with no possible way to pay. I'd hope NASA has similar representation.