NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,347
Reaction score
7,806
For the sake of comparison, I've been told at NASAspaceflight that SLS flight rate (even with shitload of money threw at it) can't go above 2 per year: so 1 every six months.
- 5 days (365/5 = 73 per year - hello, planned Shuttle launch rate !)
- 6 months ( = 2 per year)
Ouch. It hurts...
 
Last edited:

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
676
Reaction score
825
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,347
Reaction score
7,806
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

Browse "Boeing Space Freighter" (1977 study for SBSP). It is like a freakkin' BFR-Starship at a time when Musk was barely six years old.
 

FighterJock

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 29, 2007
Messages
2,331
Reaction score
1,225
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

Browse "Boeing Space Freighter" (1977 study for SBSP). It is like a freakkin' BFR-Starship at a time when Musk was barely six years old.

Done just that Archibald, the top stage of the Space Freighter design looks just about like the Starship but with wings and a tail fin, it is Starship on steroids. :cool:
 

Nik

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
708
Reaction score
297
With the SLS rolled back, yet again, yet again, what are the odds it will not fly before ~2025 ??
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
656
It was supposed to roll back. That was always the plan. They weren't going to test the pressurization and then just launch it. My guess is they knew they would encounter problems and need to fix them.

Also, Space-X can move faster because it's controlled by one person who is willing to take the development hit of losing multiple vehicles to learn from. NASA has to answer to congress and Wall Street. One doesn't like budgeting money to them and having it blow up, because re-election optics and the other is more about profit than progress. Investors don't like seeing "their" money blow up. So, NASA has to go slow and try to get it right the first time. Which is one of the roads that lead us to paralysis by analysis.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,347
Reaction score
7,806
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

Browse "Boeing Space Freighter" (1977 study for SBSP). It is like a freakkin' BFR-Starship at a time when Musk was barely six years old.

Done just that Archibald, the top stage of the Space Freighter design looks just about like the Starship but with wings and a tail fin, it is Starship on steroids. :cool:

Even better: it looks like a Shuttle-ized BFR-Starship, and it was a Boeing design with that. So many ironies with that one (SLS shuttle legacy; Boeing SLS core... Starliner, cough !)
And on top of that, the lower stage & flyback booster was to burn... methane !

image49.jpg
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
398
Reaction score
319
Here's a link to the latest 2022 SLS reference document (Up to date to about week 15 IIRC).
 

jeffb

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Oct 7, 2012
Messages
676
Reaction score
825
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

Browse "Boeing Space Freighter" (1977 study for SBSP). It is like a freakkin' BFR-Starship at a time when Musk was barely six years old.

Very true Archibald, and you can see why it was never built. NASA would have been terrified of the development process, of the necessary number of failures it would have entailed and cost and drama of going before congress all the time to explain what went wrong on the latest iteration. It's insane. This is why NASA take so long to do anything. Theyre always on the lowest risk path. Sadly, that inevitably means congress runs out of patience before the US has a viable system in place. With the NASA development model, the US will get back to the moon in about a thousand years.

Maybe Elon's example will wake them up.

My two cents.
 

Archibald

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Messages
8,347
Reaction score
7,806
Not quite. In fact it was NASA itself which gave Boeing a contract for a peculiar need: Peter Glaser / Gerard O'Neil Space Based Solar Power. NASA was trying to make itself useful in the eye of Carter in the post-1973 oil shocked world. Also the reason why Space Freighter burned methane: it was to be produced from coal as a synthetic fuel.
 

publiusr

The Anti-Proxmire
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
932
Reaction score
481
Bezos could fund Space Freighter for Boeing. It would be nice to see him and Airbus all work together for this powersat launcher.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

It doesn't help that NASA should be getting twice its current annual federal budget allocation, the US can easily afford to increase it.
Pretty sure they should be getting twice (at least) for the money they've been given. Imagine what SpaceX could do in BC with SLS's budget.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
15,341
Reaction score
4,632
The tragedy for me is that Elon hasn't really discovered anything new here, he's building and testing, building and testing. Which is the way anything new really gets built. You just have to accept that there are going to be failures and keep moving forward. SLS and NASA seem to be stuck in creep forward mode.

Browse "Boeing Space Freighter" (1977 study for SBSP). It is like a freakkin' BFR-Starship at a time when Musk was barely six years old.

Very true Archibald, and you can see why it was never built. NASA would have been terrified of the development process, of the necessary number of failures it would have entailed and cost and drama of going before congress all the time to explain what went wrong on the latest iteration. It's insane. This is why NASA take so long to do anything. Theyre always on the lowest risk path. Sadly, that inevitably means congress runs out of patience before the US has a viable system in place. With the NASA development model, the US will get back to the moon in about a thousand years.

Maybe Elon's example will wake them up.

My two cents.
If he's allowed to.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
5,636
Reaction score
3,782
It was supposed to roll back. That was always the plan. They weren't going to test the pressurization and then just launch it. My guess is they knew they would encounter problems and need to fix them.

Also, Space-X can move faster because it's controlled by one person who is willing to take the development hit of losing multiple vehicles to learn from. NASA has to answer to congress and Wall Street. One doesn't like budgeting money to them and having it blow up, because re-election optics and the other is more about profit than progress. Investors don't like seeing "their" money blow up. So, NASA has to go slow and try to get it right the first time. Which is one of the roads that lead us to paralysis by analysis.

The issue now is that they're probably going to have to roll it out, do another WDR, then roll back again, arm the flight safety system, and roll out again for launch. Unless they are confident that can arm the FSS, roll out, conduct a successful WDR, resolve any open items from the rehearsal and launch in 20 days or less.
 

publiusr

The Anti-Proxmire
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
932
Reaction score
481
Never laugh at the other guys rocket troubles. The SLS haters howled and Starship caved in. Hex nothing.
 

NMaude

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
398
Reaction score
319
NASA is going to have a press-conference on May 5 concerning the status of the Artemis-1 pre-launch wet-rehearsal and the repairs being done on the rocket:

Link

NASA will hold a media teleconference at 3:30 p.m. EDT Thursday, May 5, to discuss the status of the next wet dress rehearsal test of the agency’s Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft at the agency’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The teleconference will stream live on the agency’s website.



The agency plans to conduct another attempt of the wet dress rehearsal in early June to demonstrate the ability to load propellant into the tanks and conduct a full launch countdown ahead of the Artemis I launch this summer.



Teleconference participants include:



  • Jim Free, associate administrator, Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters in Washington
  • Cliff Lanham, senior vehicle operations manager, NASA Exploration Ground Systems Program, NASA Kennedy


To participate by telephone, media must RSVP no later than two hours prior to the start of the event to: ksc-newsroom@mail.nasa.gov.
 

martinbayer

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 6, 2009
Messages
1,032
Reaction score
617
Not quite. In fact it was NASA itself which gave Boeing a contract for a peculiar need: Peter Glaser / Gerard O'Neil Space Based Solar Power. NASA was trying to make itself useful in the eye of Carter in the post-1973 oil shocked world. Also the reason why Space Freighter burned methane: it was to be produced from coal as a synthetic fuel.
So NASA funded yet another launch vehicle paper study - big whoop. As I have quoted before on this esteemed forum: "The Earth is covered by two-thirds water and one-third space launch studies." Secretary of the U.S. Air Force Sheila A. Widnall, December 1992.
 

Orionblamblam

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
9,696
Reaction score
4,974
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
Sad-600x216.png


If this is accurate and happens, do not expect Boeing to ever produce anything of note ever again, certainly not on time or anywhere near budget. The *next* SLS will be ready for launch about the time SpaceX attaches rocket engines to Mars and moves the planet closer to the sun for easier terraforming.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB8vk8Zrwak
 
Last edited:
Top