Register here

Author Topic: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)  (Read 65371 times)

Offline RyanC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 773
  • Crazy Researcher
    • Alternate Wars
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #15 on: September 15, 2011, 04:28:27 pm »
By the way, SLS suffers from "Lego Rocket Syndrome", AKA "DIRECT syndrome", in how they plan to start out with a 3 x SSME boattail, and then develop an all new 5 x SSME base for the evolved 130 ton vehicle.

And just maybe, maybe replace the SRBs with something else down the line.
 
Somehow this will all be done cheaply and not suffer unexpected cost overruns.  ::)
 
Providing a reality check; the closest we ever got to an actual Lego Rocket; the INT-20 (S-IC/S-IVB) and INT-21 (S-IC/S-II) variants of the Saturn V, which mixed and matched already developed and completed stages would have cost the following in DDT&E/R&D costs at a minimum (reality likely would have seen costs go up):
 
$2.1 billion for the INT-20
$2.49 billion for the INT-21
 
Against this:
 
Completing the cancelled Titan IIIM and finishing up it's man-rating to allow lightweight CSMs to be launched into orbit would have cost $1.3 billion.
 
Space Shuttle SRB DDT&E/R&D costs from 1970-1978 were $1.158 billion, while SSME development costs from 1970-1978 were $3.1 billion.
 
(All dollar costs are in 2010 dollars, by the way).

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #16 on: September 15, 2011, 05:26:30 pm »
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF. I actually fail to see the point of getting worked up about this and endlessly debating it. We're at a stalemate and we'll be in stalemate until at least January 2013. Nothing anybody says on the internet is going to change anything about this.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6832
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #17 on: September 15, 2011, 09:13:35 pm »
There's an active thread filled with ranting and raving over on NSF. I actually fail to see the point of getting worked up about this and endlessly debating it. We're at a stalemate and we'll be in stalemate until at least January 2013. Nothing anybody says on the internet is going to change anything about this.

But that's what 90% of the internet is, to quote Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing"  ;D
"The real man smiles in trouble, gathers strength from distress, and grows brave by reflection." - Thomas Paine

"On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?" - Lord Macaulay

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #18 on: September 16, 2011, 04:21:27 am »
But that's what 90% of the internet is, to quote Shakespeare, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing"  ;D

Plus a lot of porn.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 678
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #19 on: September 16, 2011, 07:17:48 am »
Ranting and raving is an understatement.  I actually subscribe to that site and I can't at the moment understand why.  ::)  I confess to not fully appreciating the reasons for the hate, aside from the SpaceX and DIRECT dweebs.  Even so, the DIRECT guys got what they wanted -- a stake through the heart of Constellation -- so I don't know why they won't just accept victory and shut up.

I would have preferred that NASA specify a particular launch schedule to a particular orbit and a given total lift capability over say, a decade, and see what industry could have come up with.  Appropriate safety and performance guarantees would need to be in place, of course, and access to facilities and technology would need to be provided via an SAA.

It isn't the process I would have preferred and it isn't the booster I would have chosen, but we have a new program and I for one hope that NASA is successful.  They may not be, and if they donít receive the correct funding they won't be, but some of that is out of NASA's hands.  Hitting their performance targets and refusing to talk happy talk to the White House or the Hill is job 1 at the moment.  When something is broken, own up to it.  Keep credibility at all costs.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #20 on: September 16, 2011, 07:30:30 am »

 
This argument makes no sense. About 46 flight ready SSMEs were built, and there are only three orbiters left, which leaves 37 to dispense to museums with nine left in the orbiters. Then there's the test/developmental SSMEs which are historic in their own right, so there's more than enough to go around to museums, even if we left the final flight engines installed in the orbiters.
 

yes, it does make sense because 9 more museums get an engine.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #21 on: September 16, 2011, 07:33:58 am »

They're the engines that powered each orbiter's final flight; making them historic artifacts by themselves.


Meaningless point

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #22 on: September 16, 2011, 07:44:21 am »

Currently, the plan is to destroy 26% of all flight capable SSMEs ever built, and pretty much every Block II ever built.
 

Which is OK because 74% of them will be saved.  You show me where there is that high of a percentage of an aerospace system* product run is preserved  where there were more than 10 units was built. 


* Recovered manned spacecraft excluded.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 6721
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #23 on: September 16, 2011, 07:54:21 am »
yes, it does make sense because 9 more museums get an engine.

Imagine how many *more* museums could get a piece if they chopped 'em into confetti.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2011, 11:13:58 am »
1-Ranting and raving is an understatement.  I actually subscribe to that site and I can't at the moment understand why.  ::)  I confess to not fully appreciating the reasons for the hate, aside from the SpaceX and DIRECT dweebs.  Even so, the DIRECT guys got what they wanted -- a stake through the heart of Constellation -- so I don't know why they won't just accept victory and shut up.

2-I would have preferred that NASA specify a particular launch schedule to a particular orbit and a given total lift capability over say, a decade, and see what industry could have come up with.  Appropriate safety and performance guarantees would need to be in place, of course, and access to facilities and technology would need to be provided via an SAA.

1-Well, there's a lot of meat there. People post real documents (and not only in L2). But it's like so much of the space discussion--the same people making the same arguments that they have for years. You can go someplace like spacepolitics.com and find people posting and then dig in an archive and find the exact same people fighting with each other over the same things from 1998. If you stay out of certain threads on NSF you can increase your enjoyment. There's nothing to be learned about SpaceX, Direct, or SLS that has not been said a million times before, so stay away from those discussions.

2-There are reasons why the government doesn't do stuff like this. Space Act Agreements cannot be used for procurement, and they really limit the ability the government has to actually specify things. I talked to a NASA official a couple of months ago who expressed a lot of frustration with SAAs because he was concerned that he could not specify safety requirements and yet if the vehicle blew up and killed some astronauts, it was going to be NASA that got the blame.

So much of the public discussion of this stuff on boards and blog comments is taken in isolation, as if the rest of the federal government and federal law does not exist. People talk about Space Act Agreements, fixed-price contracts, cost-plus contracts, and the FAR as if they are experts when they have zero contracting experience and zero knowledge of how OTHER government agencies do stuff. (But they're Canadian or Australian and have a blog, so they're qualified to run the American civil space program.) I've always gotten a chuckle out of the prize advocates who suggest that NASA should just offer $10 billion to the first company that lands an American on Mars. They cannot point to a single other government agency that does anything remotely like that. They view all this stuff in isolation and believe that they're experts when they don't know how USAF or NOAA or the Marines or anybody else actually contracts for stuff.

Offline Kevin Renner

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #25 on: September 16, 2011, 03:30:28 pm »
Is it just me but this looks a lot like Direct's Jupiter proposal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7188
  • _ \\ //
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #26 on: September 17, 2011, 02:50:17 am »
To the Stars

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 678
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #27 on: September 17, 2011, 08:17:03 am »
Well, with the Shuttle gone, there is no need for the shuttle-specific structures.  The clean-pad concept is similar to how Saturn was envisioned back in the day - move everything from the VAB out to the pad with the booster.  This also gives (in theory) the opportunity to use multiple launchers on the same pad. 

Offline blackstar

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1600
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #28 on: September 18, 2011, 07:32:47 am »
Well, with the Shuttle gone, there is no need for the shuttle-specific structures.  The clean-pad concept is similar to how Saturn was envisioned back in the day - move everything from the VAB out to the pad with the booster.  This also gives (in theory) the opportunity to use multiple launchers on the same pad.

Yeah, but wasn't the pad knocked down because they didn't want to pay the maintenance costs? I don't think it is because they have a "clean pad" approach to anything.

They've cut it all down, but they're not planning on building anything on top of it.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 678
Re: NASA Space Launch System (SLS)
« Reply #29 on: September 18, 2011, 07:56:31 am »


Yeah, but wasn't the pad knocked down because they didn't want to pay the maintenance costs? I don't think it is because they have a "clean pad" approach to anything.

They've cut it all down, but they're not planning on building anything on top of it.


Yes very true, but there is also the idea that the "next user" will be part of the develoment process for the replacement pad infrastucture -- perhaps NASA itself with the "21st Century Spaceport" or whatever the SLS KSC pie slice is called now.  Or Elon, God help us all.