Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
I noticed that on the cabinet table in the White House today, there was a model of the SLS rocket in front of President Trump.
Turns out there were a few other models there too, including an Atlas V and a Falcon 9
Video:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/9717971...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-...
Trump's comment may have NASA sweating a little. And rightly so.
Turns out there were a few other models there too, including an Atlas V and a Falcon 9
Video:
https://twitter.com/thesheetztweetz/status/9717971...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/president-...
Trump's comment may have NASA sweating a little. And rightly so.
It appears NASA may be interested in a privately developed Lunar Lander for SLS to launch.
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/nasa-court...
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/nasa-court...
Possibly. It really depends on the gap between the the instigation of SLS missions and the "rivals". If SLS can get going within two years, it will have a purpose. If the gap narrows, it will look increasingly outdated.
I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
Eric Mc said:
Possibly. It really depends on the gap between the the instigation of SLS missions and the "rivals". If SLS can get going within two years, it will have a purpose. If the gap narrows, it will look increasingly outdated.
I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
Not according to NASA.I still think Orion itself and the either payloads slated for SLS should proceed - because they could be adapted for launch on whatever heavy lift boosters come along.
Eric Mc said:
They've already adapted it from its original launcher.
https://news.sky.com/story/nasa-spacexs-falcon-heavy-is-too-small-for-our-missions-11305523No need to now. They have made their mind up to blow billions of dollars on a state funded program that runs in parallel with TWO private programs.
Edited by Kccv23highliftcam on Tuesday 27th March 23:22
Recently I was a spectator to a Facebook argument between two NASA employees.
One works at KSC, and was in favour of ditching SLS as by the time it flies he feels it will be irrelevant thanks to New Glenn and BFR, never mind FH, as well as being simply too expensive to compete. He'd rather see NASA's budget spent developing payloads, manned and unmanned, to be launched by commercial launchers.
The other works at MSFC/Marshall, where a lot of SLS is happening, and he couldn't be more dismissive of BFR etc. Continually referred to NG and BFR as vapourware, repeatedly mentioned the delay of FH while ignoring the much greater slippage of SLS. Kept denying that any design work has been done yet for BFR, despite the evidence to the contrary ( e.g. engine tests, composite tank tests etc. ). He simply refused to acknowledge that SLS has any competition whatsoever, and even if it did it was preferable to spend 10x/100x as much in order to wring out the last bit of performance then dump the whole thing in the ocean than it was to suffer the performance hit entailed in a recoverable booster.
I suspect the latter will be mightily disappointed in a few years time
One works at KSC, and was in favour of ditching SLS as by the time it flies he feels it will be irrelevant thanks to New Glenn and BFR, never mind FH, as well as being simply too expensive to compete. He'd rather see NASA's budget spent developing payloads, manned and unmanned, to be launched by commercial launchers.
The other works at MSFC/Marshall, where a lot of SLS is happening, and he couldn't be more dismissive of BFR etc. Continually referred to NG and BFR as vapourware, repeatedly mentioned the delay of FH while ignoring the much greater slippage of SLS. Kept denying that any design work has been done yet for BFR, despite the evidence to the contrary ( e.g. engine tests, composite tank tests etc. ). He simply refused to acknowledge that SLS has any competition whatsoever, and even if it did it was preferable to spend 10x/100x as much in order to wring out the last bit of performance then dump the whole thing in the ocean than it was to suffer the performance hit entailed in a recoverable booster.
I suspect the latter will be mightily disappointed in a few years time
Ars Technica article discussing the increasing probability that SLS EM-2 will use the Block 1 configuration with the ICPS upper stage. There is also the possibility that the EUS, if/when it eventually emerges, may use engines other than the RL-10 currently planned.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-likel...
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/04/nasa-likel...
Beati Dogu said:
With the constant dicking around with spec, is it any wonder that government agencies are the absolute worst project managers.
Having worked for a government agency I have to agree - they seem incapable of comprehending that continually changing the spec will cause delay and cost escalation
"Perplexing and disappointing, but as yet unconfirmed rumors coming out of the Space Symposium already. Apparently the first 5 SLS launches will be Block 1 with no Exploration Upper stage, and none of them will be manned until 2025/2026. This comes from Todd May, director of MSFC. Doubt we will ever see Block 1B (or II for that matter) at this point."
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/98594068945...
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/9859338940285...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff