[New] Space Launch System / Orion Discussion Thread

[tater]

 

 

[Beccab]

No WDR it seems

A launch in late 2016 is starting to look unrealistic imho

[tater]

Stacking the SRBs started in Jan, 2021. They were supposed to be flown within 1 year of stacking beginning. Later they were allowed a 6 month extension. That's JUNE, 2022. Not for WDR, to fly.

There's no way they roll out, WDR, and fly in the same month. Unless they are given another extension, they have to do what? Do they unstack the SRBs, then restack them with new o-rings? DO they use different SRBs? Was the first 1 year time limit pulled out of thin air so they can extend it at will (or was it calculated, and they ignore it out of gottagetthereistis?).

Then we have launch window opportunities:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2021/11/artemis-1-launch-periods/

For WDR June best case is June1.  Looks like estimates of launch after earlier WDR dates (that were not met) show a min 1 month period between (4-7 weeks). If they can hit the beginning of that, then they might have a chance at that 1 week window in July, else, off to August. Note that summer in FL means a substantial chance of weather violations, then once they hit August—hurricane season. Of the manned Apollo missions, 2 flew in July, the rest between October and May.

[Silavite]

1 hour ago, tater said:

For WDR June best case is June1.  Looks like estimates of launch after earlier WDR dates (that were not met) show a min 1 month period between (4-7 weeks). If they can hit the beginning of that, then they might have a chance at that 1 week window in July, else, off to August. Note that summer in FL means a substantial chance of weather violations, then once they hit August—hurricane season. Of the manned Apollo missions, 2 flew in July, the rest between October and May.

Most of the issues during summer in Florida are due to lightning criteria violations. NASA-STD-4010 has more details on the specific criteria for those who are curious. Anyway, the lightning during that period is mostly caused by sea breeze thunderstorms, which means that lightning almost always occurs during the afternoon and evening hours, so it's something that can be accommodated for. (Though it could make delays on day-of-launch more dicey... I assume a daylight launch is desired, so the earliest window would be about 7 AM. Delay for 4 hours or more and the chances of nasty weather rolling in shoot up.)

[RyanRising]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Stacking the SRBs started in Jan, 2021. They were supposed to be flown within 1 year of stacking beginning. Later they were allowed a 6 month extension. That's JUNE, 2022. Not for WDR, to fly.

There's no way they roll out, WDR, and fly in the same month. Unless they are given another extension, they have to do what? Do they unstack the SRBs, then restack them with new o-rings? DO they use different SRBs? Was the first 1 year time limit pulled out of thin air so they can extend it at will (or was it calculated, and they ignore it out of gottagetthereistis?).

This is just speculation on my part, but I’ve suspected for a while if it gets to this point they’ll do a thorough review and analysis of the possible failure modes and risks involved with the propellant sag of leaving the boosters stacked for so long. Through that they’ll conveniently find that the SRBs are good to go for another couple of months. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by RyanRising

[Beccab]

8 minutes ago, RyanRising said:

This is just speculation on my part, but I’ve suspected for a while if it gets to this point they’ll do a thorough review and analysis of the possible failure modes and risks involved with the propellant sag of leaving the boosters stacked for so long. Through that they’ll conveniently find that the SRBs are good to go for another couple of months. 

Agreed, and if those couple months pass again they'll surely be still be qualified as good to go as well. No matter how much the launch is delayed, they won't destack the SRB, ever

Edited April 17, 2022 by Beccab

[tater]

4 hours ago, Silavite said:

Most of the issues during summer in Florida are due to lightning criteria violations. NASA-STD-4010 has more details on the specific criteria for those who are curious. Anyway, the lightning during that period is mostly caused by sea breeze thunderstorms, which means that lightning almost always occurs during the afternoon and evening hours, so it's something that can be accommodated for. (Though it could make delays on day-of-launch more dicey... I assume a daylight launch is desired, so the earliest window would be about 7 AM. Delay for 4 hours or more and the chances of nasty weather rolling in shoot up.)

The geometry for TLI burns means that the launch times are tightly constrained, so that could cut the days when there's a window early in the morning.

[tater]

 

 

Early June "challenging at best" means early July is the NET time frame, then nothing til August.

[tater]

Mighty SLS/Orion in for foreground watching the 4th Falcon 9 leave the pad for space since it's been at 39B, and another F9 waiting—which will be the second crewed F9 to leave KSC for ISS since SLS rolled to the pad. Currently rollback was scheduled for April 26, but that's now the Crew-4 launch date, so I bet they delay the rollback.

It's sorta comical. Assuming they fix stuff, then roll it back to 39B for another test (?), then rollback for FTS, etc, then 39B again, then launch, there is every reason to expect multiple F9s to fly to space creating similar images with SLS on the pad.

 

[SunlitZelkova]

18 hours ago, tater said:

It's sorta comical.

Why?

Falcon 9 is a commercial medium lift launch vehicle. Artemis I is basically a test flight, and it is government operated. In any case, it isn’t being billed as “regular access to space” like the Shuttle was, so there is no need to launch at a specific date per say because the customer is the operator.

Obviously, SLS has problems, and the delays are indeed dumb because of launch windows and the expiration date on the boosters, but that comparison doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying NASA’s aviation development testbeds suck because they don’t fly as often as commercial airliners, and commercial aircraft still look like they did 20 years ago while NASA’s designs (at least the more radical ones) have yet to see much practical use in commercial aviation.

Starship is in a much more similar stage of development with SLS. I don’t know just how difficult the red tape is going to make launching, but if it manages to fly a just couple test flights prior to Artemis I, a comparison would be warranted and SLS would be shamed further. Even a single test flight would be pretty damning towards the whole program.

[tater]

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why?

Falcon 9 is a commercial medium lift launch vehicle. Artemis I is basically a test flight, and it is government operated. In any case, it isn’t being billed as “regular access to space” like the Shuttle was, so there is no need to launch at a specific date per say because the customer is the operator.

They were mandated by law to try to launch by the end of 2016, actually.  https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf

That in fact understates it rather a lot:

Quote

(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
 

Operational capability, in 2016. Not test flights.

For Orion:

Quote

(2) GOAL FOR OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY.—It shall be the goal to achieve full operational capability for the transportation vehicle developed pursuant to this subsection by not later than
December 31, 2016. For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
 

Again, operational. The first Artemis crew mission is just a test. The first operational mission would be Artemis III? Only ~10 years late—while spending the same annual budget the entire time, as if it was working. Nice gig if you can get it.

Artemis I is indeed a test flight, not even all up. For the vast amount of money spent, and the claim they were using existing technology (Shuttle) to speed dev and decrease cost, they should be more hardware rich. For what they spent they could have tested the GSE, etc years ago. For the destructive test on the core they did, why not use it to test GSE, then destructively test it later?

7 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Obviously, SLS has problems, and the delays are indeed dumb because of launch windows and the expiration date on the boosters, but that comparison doesn’t make sense. It’s like saying NASA’s aviation development testbeds suck because they don’t fly as often as commercial airliners, and commercial aircraft still look like they did 20 years ago while NASA’s designs (at least the more radical ones) have yet to see much practical use in commercial aviation.

Starship is in a much more similar stage of development with SLS. I don’t know just how difficult the red tape is going to make launching, but if it manages to fly a just couple test flights prior to Artemis I, a comparison would be warranted and SLS would be shamed further. Even a single test flight would be pretty damning towards the whole program.

The difference is that SpaceX can churn out test articles quickly, and they have certainly spent grossly less money than SLS has spent even just since the switch from Constellation. Booster 5 plumbed for the old engine version? Trash it. Booster 7 had a problem? Scrap it, here's Booster 8.

For a vehicle that was supposed to already be operational—all while spending the same amount every year since 2011—they should have multiple stages ready, such that they could concurrently test, scrap any of they need to, etc. They should have flown 5-6 times by now.

Edited April 23, 2022 by tater

[tater]

Nelson (link is on wayback machine):

Quote

A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years.

"He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

 

[StrandedonEarth]

19 minutes ago, tater said:

Nelson (link is on wayback machine):

Quote

A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years.

"He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."

 

Translation: Not enough pork. Needs to be more expensive so the pork can flooooowwww.......

 

[tater]

Ax-1 undocking slipped again (still weather in recovery areas). Crew-4 then also delayed, so maybe SLS can roll back to the barn in between.

[tater]

I should add that the operational use of SLS at the time written does not use ICPS. It needs EUS for that. ICPS was never intended for crew missions for reasons discussed up thread. So to meet the founding requirements of the system, the true date will be the first operational use of Block 1B.

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

 

 

[tater]

 

[Beccab]

 

[RCgothic]

Aka hurricane season.

[steve9728]

Ah delayed again... I can hear the Falcon 9 laughing next to it

I know that thing needs to be treated with extra care and well... you know... NASA's timetable... But SLS is a bit too outrageous

Edited April 26, 2022 by steve9728
well...

[tater]

9 minutes ago, steve9728 said:

Ah delayed again... I can hear the Falcon 9 laughing next to it

I know that thing needs to be treated with extra care and well... you know... NASA's timetable... But SLS is a bit too outrageous

It's not outrageous enough, honestly.

My principal complaint has always been it's a launch vehicle with no mission it can accomplish. To truly be useful it needs substantially more capability. Around 50% more throw to TLI than Block 2 is what it needs assuming Orion.

[steve9728]

Just now, tater said:

It's not outrageous enough, honestly.

"sad but true"

[SunlitZelkova]

SLS has problems, I have not denied that. But comparing it to Falcon 9?

It's like comparing the Space Shuttle to Soyuz (rocket). The Shuttle can basically be criticized for all of the same reasons as the SLS, yet it is rather illogical to compare it to Soyuz as they were born out of completely different contexts and with different requirements and limitations.

[tater]

6 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

SLS has problems, I have not denied that. But comparing it to Falcon 9?

It's like comparing the Space Shuttle to Soyuz (rocket). The Shuttle can basically be criticized for all of the same reasons as the SLS, yet it is rather illogical to compare it to Soyuz as they were born out of completely different contexts and with different requirements and limitations.

I was not comparing it directly to Falcon 9 as a vehicle, I was observing that F9 flew to space within view of SLS 4 times for the brief period it stayed on the pad (very nearly 5  F9s).  2 of those (the 5th that SLS scooted into the VAB and avoided) were Crew flights. Commercial Crew was enacted the same year as SLS, 2010. Some of the CCrew budget was taken from it and given to SLS early on, too, delaying commercial crew. Dragon has now flown crew 7 times (crew-1-4, ax-1, I4, demo 2?) I think, plus 1 all-up test flight. SLS has not even made a WDR.

Remember, SLS was supposed to be operational sooner than Commercial Crew since CCrew was developing 2 entirely new crew vehicles, and SLS was using already existing Shuttle tech, plus Orion was far along from Constellation. Operational by the end of 2016—with test flights well before that (possibly to ISS, since Orion was taken from the Constellation program and was meant initially to only ever launch to LEO, any lunar missions achieved via Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission profiles). Actually, Orion was also meant to replace Shuttle as a vehicle to serve ISS (MPCV = Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle).

The schedule comparisons and the bad look of SLS on the pad while rockets fly to space all around it holds.

BTW, there are a few vehicle comparisons worth considering. Yes, medium lift is not comparable to heavy lift, but Falcon 9 was designed to lift Dragon to ISS (and they always wanted a crew version). Falcon 9 completes this mission with plenty of margin, and can also be used for other medium lift missions. SLS was designed to complete what mission? Even when it flies, what role does it fill? It gets a capsule to a useless, distant lunar orbit. Anything interesting for that crew to do requires that stuff be sent to it either by medium lift vehicles designed to send things to ISS, heavy variants of those, or a vehicle that obviates SLS entirely.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by tater