[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

14 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

I hope they have video!

IKR?

[Codraroll]

On 12/7/2019 at 2:23 AM, Ultimate Steve said:

I hope they have video!

I think it's unlikely that they decided to store the test results for posterity solely by relying on the memory of the people who saw it. Then again, considering that this was, more or less, how the know-how required to build the Saturn V was stored, one can never be sure. 

[jadebenn]

 

[Ultimate Steve]

Well, it could be worse. Inflation adjusted Saturn V is like 700m to 1.23 billion I think. Granted Saturn V had more capability than SLS but if they are doing 10 launches of SLS than I can't imagine them not going to block 1b or 2.

[sh1pman]

How can the whole rocket cost $800M if engines only cost $600-$700M?

Edited December 9, 2019 by sh1pman

[Terwin]

21 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

How can the whole rocket cost $800M if engines only cost $600-$700M?

Lots of testing and double-checking fuel tanks along with over-paying their in-house hardware manufacturing people for the control computers perhaps?

Don't forget that development costs have already been paid off and the 'sunk costs' of the re-used engines is probably not included in this price.

 

[KSK]

Genuinely curious about those test results. Naively, that sounds like the tank is pretty massively overbuilt, or is that just down to the fact that they're trying to crush a very large tube by pressing straight down along its major axis?

[tater]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

 

This second number is abject BS.

I want to see a spreadsheet before I'd believe it.

The 1.6B$ number seems in the ballpark, though it can't include program cost, since that's over 2 billion a year.

I can't see 800M ever being a thing, they first 6 RS-25E engines are a quarter of a billion each, and that's after any dev work they've done getting the 16 refurbished SSMEs ready, and in addition to another 1+ billion they are getting to develop the production line for RS-25E. Wonder what they will charge for RS-25E? SSMEs were what, 40 million? These should be less, right?

I want to see the OIG go over their numbers, and give us a transparent accounting, this is not a private rocket, nothing should be hidden, we should know how much they spend on the coffee in the office for this project.

 

1 hour ago, sh1pman said:

How can the whole rocket cost $800M if engines only cost $600-$700M?

The 5th SLS has 1 BILLION in Core Stage engines alone. The AJR contract for the follow-on 6 RS-25E (expendable, and supposedly less expensive---where "less expensive" is defined as "6 times more expensive than what they replace") engines was 1.5B$. That means the 6th SLS has 500M$ in RS-25E engines just for the first TWO.

This means that no "cheaper" SLS LVs can possibly exist until SLS number 7.

[tater]

So according to the Artemis wiki page, Artemis 7 is penciled in for 2028 as a Block 1B crew mission. That means no cheaper SLS is possible for almost 10 years. That's at a cadence of 1 per year starting in 2024.

https://www.space.com/nasa-orders-more-boeing-sls-rockets-for-moon.html

The contract announced a couple months ago was for 10 core stages. So we should see the number for that be really surprisingly cheap (just the core stage) if the 800M$ number is true---because the average price for all the SLS launches after #3 (already paid for I think) will include 508M for engines for #4, and a billion for #5, and 500M + whatever 2 RS-25Es finally cost. And that also needs to include EUS (which must each cost more than ICPS). That basically leaves something like 500M$ (800M minus 300M for both the EUS and SRBS)for each core stage, including engines.

So we have 10 SLS, and let's say the RS-25E somehow comes down to 100M$ each (the first 6 being 250M each, this seems like a reasonable round number).

We have 5.008B$ in RS-25s for 10 more. So even with new engines, cheaper than both the "cheaper" new engines, and the "so cheap" refurbs (127M/ea), the following 10 after SLS 3 will still each have over 500M$ worth of RS-25s on them. Somehow, they also need to add the EUS, and all the assembly costs, plus the SRBs, and only spend on average 300M$ to reach that number. Even should they do this, they are not adding in any program costs, which at 2/year should add about another billion per launch (I'm assuming 20% of their program cost is not directly for SLS, feel free to make it 50%, that still adds 625M to each SLS). Am I missing something?

 

 

[tater]

Thanks, Jim!

 

[tater]

Reading this:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-advanced-boosters-flight-nine-shuttle-heritage/

the advanced boosters have over 25 million in savings vs shuttle srbs. This is 50M per launch in savings. I’ve been grossly underestimating SRB cost for SLS. Probably more than a FH for each launch.

[StrandedonEarth]

32 minutes ago, tater said:

Reading this:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/05/sls-advanced-boosters-flight-nine-shuttle-heritage/

From that article:

Quote

he Space Launch System includes a mix of former Shuttle and Constellation (CxP) hardware, a winning design from numerous studies conducted by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) via political guidance provided in the 2010 Authorization Act.

I think there’s an error there. Shouldn’t that say “political interference” instead of “political guidance”? 

Also, looking at the concept art with LFBs made me wonder if F9 cores could work, but they don’t have enough thrust. If they used 3 or 4 it would work spectacularly, but would probably require too much redesign of the core and MLP

[tater]

Yeah, in my guestimates of SLS launch cost, I had credited the entire cost of the 2 SRBs at ~40M$. LOL. The new boosters (which of course won't ever count the likely billions in dev cost as something to be amortized) with 50M in savings per pair means that the current SRBs must cost much,much more than that.

Looking at the bar graphs on the comparison illustration (with the savings listed) The darker colors are the extant SRBs. That allows a guestimate for each current SRB: 10M+18.4+1+20+1=50.4M$ each, minus the cost of the case which is the same (tube), which says no change, but the graph makes them look like 2M (each segment?). If each segment, that's another 10M per booster. So 60.4M$/SRB. Between the cost of a FH reused, and FH expendable, just for the SRBs.

[jadebenn]

Boeing is reporting that CDR of EUS components is complete

They're quoting 45 tons to TLI performance now, which is very interesting. I was under the impression the BOLE SRBs were required to reach that level, but the implication seems to be that this is just the new EUS performance baseline. Can't make any definitive conclusions with just a press release, though.

[tater]

1 hour ago, jadebenn said:

Boeing is reporting that CDR of EUS components is complete

They're quoting 45 tons to TLI performance now, which is very interesting. I was under the impression the BOLE SRBs were required to reach that level, but the implication seems to be that this is just the new EUS performance baseline. Can't make any definitive conclusions with just a press release, though.

How could they get 8t more without BOLE? You're right, that looks odd, every previous graphic/statement I have seen has advanced boosters required as Block 1b+ or Block 2 (nomenclature seems flexible sometimes).

45t would really be something if Orion didn't suck, it would actually be an Apollo sort of capability. Probably needs to be 50-55t to TLI given Orion as the CM, though (more if superior capability is also required of the lander).

Hard to drag out this image:

So they are showing different SRBs for Block 1B, or just different paint? Everything I have read has the boosters the same---until they run out, right?

[jadebenn]

The SRBs in that render look like the standard Shuttle ASRM casings, just without the photometric markings.

SRB replacement must take place by flight eight due to depletion of the Shuttle casings. The program for this is already underway and is known as the Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension (BOLE) program. I've talked about it on here before, but I'll go over it again quickly for the benefit of outside observers.

Basically, OmegA and Shuttle will use nearly-identical SRBs. Same dimensions, casings, propellant, hydraulics, etc. Very minor differences. This is possible because NGIS was smart and knew this situation would occur, so they designed OmegA around the SRBs they were developing for SLS, and not the other way around. Biggest changes are lightweight composite casings, new propellant (apparently just about nobody makes the type Shuttle used these days), no more hypergolics for the flight control systems (they'll be electric), and quite a jump in thrust. SLS with BOLE SRBs will actually be pushing the structural limits of pad 39B's flame trench, with somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-11 million pounds-force of thrust at liftoff compared to the Saturn V's 7-8 million. Thankfully, the pads were overbuilt for the Nova rocket that never materialized, so they should be able to handle anything below 12 million pounds-force of thrust.

Anyway, part of the confusion, @tater, is that carrying the Universal Stage Adapter (USA) through the TLI burn on crewed SLS imposes a payload penalty compared to cargo SLS; About roughly two tons of TLI payload. So the lowest payload figures will universally be for the crewed variant. Then there's the fact that not only has the EUS been uprated a few times, but there's also less payload margin being held in reserve as the design matures. So the exact performance of EUS was already murky before this press release, and this only complicates matters. We know it's more than the original 37 tons to TLI, but we don't know by how much.

Edited December 11, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

28 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

We know it's more than the original 37 tons to TLI, but we don't know by how much.

We get a couple tons leeway based on if Orion CSM is attached, and it was already 37-38 with Orion, that gets it ~40t bare. So they only have to eek out 5t, still, the usual numbers that look like that in the past have been BOLE. Still, not for a long, long time, however. If they were to use one for Europa Clipper, that would put all 8 gone (with no slips at all) in 2028. So no new boosters til 2029.

[jadebenn]

1 minute ago, tater said:

We get a couple tons leeway based on if Orion CSM is attached, and it was already 37-38 with Orion, that gets it ~40t bare. So they only have to eek out 5t, still, the usual numbers that look like that in the past have been BOLE. Still, not for a long, long time, however. If they were to use one for Europa Clipper, that would put all 8 gone (with no slips at all) in 2028. So no new boosters til 2029.

They could phase-in the BOLE SRBs earlier if necessary. I have a feeling they might once OmegA is flying.

[tater]

2 hours ago, jadebenn said:

They could phase-in the BOLE SRBs earlier if necessary. I have a feeling they might once OmegA is flying.

There's not really a reason to bump up the TLI mass without something to send.

They talk about an Ascent Stage (lunar) that masses 7.5 (?from memory) tons. They have no need for excess capacity, even with just 37t they are fine, and they can't comanifast an entire lander, regardless.

Useful payloads---where part of the payload is the Orion CSM---are very limited. It's either some small part of a system (Ascent Stage or a small Gateway part), or it needs to be an entire system, or something larger (cargo launch).

[jadebenn]

Right, but the BOLE SRBs are actually supposed to be cheaper in addition to having more performance and being essentially drop-in ready. I would honestly be surprised if they decided to completely exhaust the ASRM stock before switching; Those are powerful incentives.

Anyway,

NASA and Boeing look ahead to long-term SLS production

There's some interesting info about the production rate in there too:

Quote

Chilton said that, while Michoud was not designed for high production rates, he didn’t see many problems in going to two SLS vehicles a year. Despite the long delays in the production of the first SLS core stage, he said the company could produce future SLS core stages at a rate of one every eight months. “So we’re not that far off it,” he said of a two-per-year production rate.

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by jadebenn

[tater]

12 minutes ago, jadebenn said:

Right, but the BOLE SRBs are actually supposed to be cheaper in addition to having more performance and being essentially drop-in ready. I would honestly be surprised if they decided to completely exhaust the ASRM stock before switching; Those are powerful incentives.

Yes, they say in that chart that the new SRBs SAVE 25+ million each. They should not even cost 25M to save. The fact that they are so very, very overpriced in the first place is astounding.

 

[tater]

 

[tater]

More detail from the article:

Quote

NASA’s budget request for next year was clear about its intentions. Citing “delays and performance issues,” the “final design efforts” on the version of the rocket that would use what’s known as the Exploration Upper Stage, or EUS, are to be “deferred” so that Boeing, the program’s prime contractor, can remain focused on completing the core section of the SLS rocket. That, NASA has said, is key to meeting a White House mandate to return people to the moon by 2024, a program NASA calls Artemis.

In an interview, Bridenstine said that while the upper stage will be a great asset for NASA some day, he said “any plan that requires an EUS to be ready by 2024 is a plan that reduces the probability of success. It’s just not going to be ready.”

 

Quote

“All of our contractors lobby Congress to achieve what is in their best interest even though it may not be in the best interest of the nation,” Bridenstine said in an interview. “This is another example of that. My job as NASA administrator is to make sure we do what’s right for the country, and for the taxpayer.”

 

Quote

“When we have one contractor trying to dictate policy that benefits them over the others, it puts the whole program at risk,” said one senior NASA official on the condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly.

 

[Kerbal4]

the gateway sounds a little advanced for what nasa is up to. do you think they will acheive it? i mean, this iss took 10 years to build, now one just as hard around the moon in 5 years. hmmm.

[RCgothic]

Building space stations isn't that hard really. The major problem is mass and volume. What makes gateway hard is a limited throw to NRHO and then any mission needs to get down to the lunar surface as well.