NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would seem that Boeing's management needs to be purged (And get rid of any traces of the McDonnell Aircraft Corporation corporate-culture too).
 
NASA has just put out a short video concerning the spraying on of insulation on Artemis III's LVSA:


Teams at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, have completed applying a spray-on foam insulation to the launch vehicle stage adapter (LVSA) for the Artemis III mission. The LVSA is a cone-shaped piece of hardware that connects the SLS (Space Launch System) rocket’s upper and lower stages and partially encloses the engine of the interim cryogenic propulsion stage. The spray-on foam insulation is a type of thermal protection system that is used to protect the Moon rocket’s hardware from the extreme temperatures, forces, and sounds it’ll experience during launch and ascent. Unlike other parts of the mega rocket, the thermal protection system for the LVSA is applied entirely by hand using a tool similar to a spray gun. It is the largest piece of SLS hardware to be hand sprayed. Teams started applying the thermal protection system in March.
Click to expand...
The LVSA in this video will be used for Artemis III, the mission that will land the first woman and first person of color on the lunar surface. The LVSA is fully manufactured at Marshall by NASA, lead contractor Teledyne Brown Engineering, and the Jacobs Space Exploration Group’s ESSCA contract. Learn more about SLS: nasa.gov/sls
Click to expand...

What I find curious is that is hand-sprayed onto the adaptor.
 
Some good news concerning the status of the Artemis 2 spacecraft from TheSpaceBucket:


NASA has been very busy as they continue to prepare for the second Artemis mission, Artemis II. After the first successful uncrewed mission around the Moon, this second launch features a full crew and an ambitious flight path. However, before the second Space Launch System rocket can lift off, each of its many partners and contributors needs to complete and ship their core systems.
Click to expand...
Recently, we saw work on the European Service Module which provides Orion with primary power and propulsion until it's discarded at the end of each mission. Specifically, teams are performing final checkouts of the Orion spacecraft’s service module before integrating the crew and service modules for Artemis II.
Click to expand...
This comes in addition to even more progress on this exact component just months prior. Once complete, NASA will be one step closer to the first human mission to the Moon in over half a century. Here I will go more in-depth into the recent module progress, the flight profile of Artemis II, what to expect in the next few weeks, and more.
Click to expand...
 
In a nutshell: NASA relationship with Congress and Aerospace Contractors. Think of NASA as Ted Beneke, Huell as Congress, and Patrick Kuby as Boeing.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1gGbo2Sue4

"I'll tell you what this is about. This is about you, NASA, and me, contractor, doing our best to keep Congress happy. So Congress, does NASA and its Space Launching System presently makes you happy ?"

"Reasonably..." (Fun fact: Huell is from Louisiana. Just like NASA's Michoud making SLS cores under a juicy Boeing contract)​
 
Well it appears that NASA has nearly completed its repairs on the MLP-1, from TheSpaceBucket:


The first launch of SLS during the Artemis 1 mission was successful in practically every aspect. However, not long after the launch NASA reported some damage to the mobile launch platform and general launch site that wasn't quite expected. This included excess material spread around the area and primarily damage to the elevators within the launch platform which were destroyed due to the launch.
Click to expand...
Now teams are almost complete with both repairs and upgrades to try and prevent any future damage. It seems like there is somewhat of a theme of new rockets and launchpad damage with Starship also coming to mind. While not nearly as bad, SLS had a lot more flame diversion and noise suppression in place yet it still wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
When launching rockets that produce nearly 9 million pounds of thrust at liftoff, the pad infrastructure becomes a complex project and in some cases new territory. Here I will go more in-depth into the upgrades NASA is making, the initial damage to the pad, what to expect in the next few weeks, and more.
Click to expand...
 
publiusr said:
Might the SRBs be improved?
Click to expand...

Certainly but for the next round of booster development I want to Dynetics LRB design implemented as not only can its' F-1A engines be throttled they can be shutdown and that can only improve the overall safety of the SLS.
 
Does anyone know if Artemis I'd first-stage's destructive reentry over the Pacific Ocean was filmed? After the first-stage shutdown and separated it had a 19x1122 mile orbit.
 
publiusr said:
Might the SRBs be improved?
spacenews.com

Anduril acquires solid rocket motor manufacturer Adranos

Anduril acquires solid rocket motor manufacturer Adranos
spacenews.com spacenews.com
Click to expand...
Unlikely in the short term. It takes NASA years to make changes to anything. The last time NASA needed to change the aluminum fuel due to a supplier telling them that they would no longer produce the powdered aluminum that was in the spec, it took 2+ years to get approval for the new material.

Besides, despite the claims from Adranos (now Anduril) of up to 40% increase in performance, the Al-Li alloy they use only has a small percentage increase in specific impulse over standard aluminum with a significant increase in cost. It may be economically useful for AAMs and other volume limited applications, but it would be difficult to justify in a large SRM. Not to mention that the production capacity of Adranos is currently around 50,000 lbs of powder per year. One SLS Booster requires more than 200,000 lbs of aluminum powder to produce. I understand that is just a matter of capital investment to increase production, but it would still need to make economic sense to make that investment.
 
GAO dumps on all things space anyway. Save money by eliminating them.
 
publiusr said:
GAO dumps on all things space anyway. Save money by eliminating them.
Click to expand...

That is a very short-sighted in that case, does the GAO realise just how important the space infrastructure is to not only the US but to the World? Imagine what would happen for example if the whole GPS constellation failed.
 
publiusr said:
They forget the magnifier effect…like Apollo
Click to expand...

Yeah, a LOT of new technologies came about due to the Apollo programme - science and engineering spinoffs.

A good example of what the Apollo programme helped to kickoff is the mass-production of semiconductor ICs, when NASA issued the contract for the Apollo Guidance Computer (Used in the Apollo CSM and LM) ICs were a hideously expensive niche product, the AGC used about 110,000 dual 3 input NOR-gate ICs.
 
NMaude said:
That is a very short-sighted in that case, does the GAO realise just how important the space infrastructure is to not only the US but to the World? Imagine what would happen for example if the whole GPS constellation failed.
Click to expand...

GAO's job is to be critical, at the request of specific Congresspersons.
 
NMaude said:
Yeah, a LOT of new technologies came about due to the Apollo programme - science and engineering spinoffs.

A good example of what the Apollo programme helped to kickoff is the mass-production of semiconductor ICs, when NASA issued the contract for the Apollo Guidance Computer (Used in the Apollo CSM and LM) ICs were a hideously expensive niche product, the AGC used about 110,000 dual 3 input NOR-gate ICs.
Click to expand...
Nah, it was the Minuteman guidance systems that did that.
 
NMaude said:
Certainly but for the next round of booster development I want to Dynetics LRB design implemented as not only can its' F-1A engines be throttled they can be shutdown and that can only improve the overall safety of the SLS.
Click to expand...
No need for new solids. SLS isn't going to fly enough to warrant it.
 
NMaude said:
That is a very short-sighted in that case, does the GAO realise just how important the space infrastructure is to not only the US but to the World? Imagine what would happen for example if the whole GPS constellation failed.
Click to expand...
Wrong take on it. Listening to the wrong people.
 
Byeman said:
Nah, it was the Minuteman guidance systems that did that.
Click to expand...

Partly correct, however it was a combination of both AGC project AND the D-37C project that contributed.

Byeman said:
MDAC wasn't the issue.
Click to expand...

Yes it was, while I don't understand the details it was the McDonnell Aircraft corporation corporate culture that ultimately contributed to Boeing's problems, when the merger occurred McDonnell-pDouglas execs should never, ever been allowed to to assume controlling corporate offices with the newly merged corporation.

Byeman said:
No need for new solids. SLS isn't going to fly enough to warrant it.
Click to expand...

It is too soon to determine whether or not the SLS will have a sustainable flight-rate (Boeing needs a metaphorical size-12 boot up its collective arse).
 
NMaude said:
Yes it was, while I don't understand the details it was the McDonnell Aircraft corporation corporate culture that ultimately contributed to Boeing's problems, when the merger occurred McDonnell-pDouglas execs should never, ever been allowed to to assume controlling corporate offices with the newly merged corporation.
Click to expand...
Not really. MDAC products has no issues. It was Boeing themselves.
 
NMaude said:
It is too soon to determine whether or not the SLS will have a sustainable flight-rate (Boeing needs a metaphorical size-12 boot up its collective arse).
Click to expand...
It is not going to have a flight "rate" that matters, it will be no more than a surge of 2 per year. The total number of flights ever will be less than 10. It is unsustainable.
 
Byeman said:
Not really. MDAC products has no issues. It was Boeing themselves.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to the McDonnell Aircraft Corporate culture that Boeing got saddled with when they acquired McDonnell-Douglas and made the mistake of letting McD senior corporate officers to get leadership positions in Boeing afterwards.
 
NMaude said:
I'm referring to the McDonnell Aircraft Corporate culture that Boeing got saddled with when they acquired McDonnell-Douglas and made the mistake of letting McD senior corporate officers to get leadership positions in Boeing afterwards.
Click to expand...
Show me a specific decision or decisions that they made that caused Boeing to "decay"
 
Byeman said:
Show me a specific decision or decisions that they made that caused Boeing to "decay"
Click to expand...

One that comes immediately to mind is that shortly after the merger Boeing's headquarters was moved to Chicago well away from Boeing's main factory in Washington state, now I can't recall the exact details but shortly afterwards these McD execs made a series of decisions would badly damaged and undermined Boeing's strong safety culture (If it had still been in place the disastrous problems that blighted the 737MAX programme for example would likely never have arisen).
 
Umm, Darleen Druyan. (Jail time).

The unnamed B&P teams that bid military development programs as FFP for the last, what, 15 years?
 
aim9xray said:
Umm, Darleen Druyan. (Jail time).

The unnamed B&P teams that bid military development programs as FFP for the last, what, 15 years?
Click to expand...

FFP is a choice by the contracting office, not the bidders.
 
TomS said:
FFP is a choice by the contracting office, not the bidders.
Click to expand...
So is "No Bid". By the contractor.

But that was OK, after all, BDS could buy in - and count on steady and ever-climbing profits being spun off by the Dreamliner...all the while allowing the company to be drained of cash by the vulture capital, errr "shareholders". /extreme sarcasm
 
In regards to the growing costs of the SLS programme and increasing unsustainability here's a report from TheSpaceBucket:


NASA requested $11.2 billion in the fiscal year 2024 president’s budget request to fund the SLS program through fiscal year 2028. This comes in addition to the $11.8 billion already spent developing the initial capability. All of this money is just for the Space Launch System rocket, the main launch vehicle for current and future Artemis missions.
Click to expand...
A recent audit however has found that these high prices are unaffordable even for the agency, and could have significant impacts down the line. NASA is currently in the process of manufacturing and testing SLS hardware for not only Artemis II, but Artemis III and beyond as well. Unfortunately, the audit found that each new core stage for example is costing the agency more than the previous.
Click to expand...
With NASA only just starting to return to the Moon after the recent success of Artemis I, they need to figure out a solution and fast. If the Space Launch System can’t continue to launch within the agency’s budget, they will need a system that can. Here I will go more in-depth into what the audit found, the true cost of SLS, its current production, and more.
Click to expand...
Full article here - https://thespacebucket.com/nasa-cant-...
Click to expand...
 
NMaude said:
In regards to the growing costs of the SLS programme and increasing unsustainability here's a report from TheSpaceBucket:
Click to expand...
That is all Boeing and nothing to do with MDAC. SLS was done by all pre existing Boeing Huntsville. Same with ISS cost. MDAC legacy was X-37 and Delta
 
NMaude said:
undermined Boeing's strong safety culture (If it had still been in place the disastrous problems that blighted the 737MAX programme for example would likely never have arisen).
Click to expand...
Hq location has no affect on Commercial airplane decisions in Washington.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom