Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-13 09:44:07

I have serious questions and concerns of the ultimate viability of the SLS program and the "cost effectiveness" of the final product. Every time I read a new article or hear a report about the Boeing-built core first stage, I get a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach. Just this past week, NASA announced another slippage of the first flight into 2019, and only yesterday they declined the option of having this be a crewed flight. These announcements call into question the overall commitment of NASA to return to manned spaceflight.

In contrast, Space Exploration Technologies, a.k.a. SpaceX, has a launch cadence of one launch every 2 weeks. According to various news sources, the first flight (long delayed) of the Falcon Heavy appears to be sometime in the 3rd Quarter of this year, and a commercial payload launch sometime in either November or December this year.

Anyone with 2 functioning brain cells in contact with one another would be wondering about the wisdom of continued funding by NASA of a horse in the race who isn't even in the starting gate yet. The $19 Billion NASA annual budget is simply being strewn about too many diverse projects with no focus on the congressionally mandated manned spaceflight mission. Additionally, the "cost-plus" contracting only serves to exacerbate the problems the agency faces. It seems to me that the ULA is in receipt of NASA mediated Corporate Welfare.

The only way in which the SLS program should be allowed to proceed is under new contract terms, and with a mandate the first stage be reusable. Perhaps Boeing should collaborate with SpaceX and learn some hard lessons? The cost of a single SLS booster is now nearing $600,000,000! And one has not yet flown!

I personally am calling "Bravo Sierra" on this NASA project. It's either "deficate or abdicate," as far as I'm concerned (if the admin will excuse this one burst of language, that means "shit or get off the pot").

Additionally, Buzz Aldrin at the recently convened Mars Conference, has called for NASA to "pull the plug" on ongoing funding for the ISS; he's stated that it's a black hole for NASA dollars which could/should be utilized better elsewhere.

So...am I the only one "wondering out loud" about this topic? If SpaceX accomplishes the plan of privately sending paying customers on a circumlunar free return trajectory before NASA accomplishes the same feat (scheduled for $1 Billion +) on it's own nickel, what's the point?

SpaceNut · 2017-05-13 12:27:25

Nasa will use its shuttle fuzzy math for the cost of production stuff as it does not include the R&D costs across the time it will use any product. It writes production contracts for x amount of items give or take what they will use for usually a fized contract. The first stage is basically a modified shuttle fuel tank with boosters to which during the shuttle era that would be about $500,000,000 in cost for its production.

Also in that Boeing mix is a yet to fly capsule for cargo and manned use called Starliner....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-13 12:33:46

Oh, yeah. The Starliner. Then Lockheed Martin gets in the act with the Orion capsule, too.

RobS · 2017-05-13 15:38:28

NASA never wanted the Space Launch System; it isn't called the "Senate Launch System" for nothing. It has been clear for some time that the SLS was a giant white elephant based on outdated technology. They aren't even planning to reuse the shuttle engines, and they were designed for multiple reuse! I have heard estimates of a billion dollars per launch. The Falcon Heavy launches half as much for a tenth the price, and if it becomes reusable its price will be even better. The SLS also has cost billions to develop, the Falcon Heavy much less (probably closer to half a billion, since the Falcon non-reusable cost $300 million). It's a sad waste of money.

SpaceNut · 2017-05-13 16:16:13

Early in the constellation I had estimate based on the shuttle contracts that it was going to be in the 1.1 to 1.3 billion range as the cycles of launch were not there to get any sort of drop in the standing army costs between launches. None was happening on the parts piece counts either via contracts as well. Even the development work that has gone into a cheaper version of the SME's will not go into effect until the remaining shuttle engines are exhausted. The work on enhancing the J2 engine has as well been for not...

Boeing unless it updates its Delta IV heavy will not be in the game either to go with its Starliner.

Lockheed is waiting on the ULA's repacement for the Atlas V and a triple common core Russian engine beast will not be flying either to make use of Orion.

Nasa really does need to take control of there rocket design groups or just give up as Space X is now approaching a technological lead in equipment for space....

ATK / Orbital would be a contender for cost but there seems to be no interest on manned flight as of yet and as such they have no capsule to make use of.

RobS · 2017-05-14 13:35:02

Here's a very interesting article in Ars Technica dated yesterday where a Space X employee is quite frank about the SLS and a few other subjects: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05 … mpetitors/

RobertDyck · 2017-05-14 14:27:48

I am concerned with SLS. It's taking too long, and costing too much. It's run by the same contractor corporate executives who ran Shuttle. But SLS block 2 *IS* the Ares launch vehicle from Mars Direct. Yes, current plans are to replace SLS block 2 with block 2B, but look at history. SLS block 2 when announced was supposed to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO; Saturn C5 was supposed to lift 130 metric tonnes to LEO or 45 tonnes to a trans-Lunar trajectory, but Saturn V as built was able to lift 118 tonnes to LEO or 47 metric tonnes to trans-Lunar trajectory. It shouldn't come as surprise to anyone that it was optimized for the Moon. SLS block 2B is just the same. If you want Mars Direct, SLS is a major part of it.

I would ask President Donald Trump to kick some serious ass. He kick Boeing's ass re Air Force One upgrades, and Lockheed-Martin re F-35. The current advertised price of F-35 is reasonable, what it was supposed to be when JSF was first proposed, and competitive (after inflation) with past fighter jets. Good job! Now do the same with SLS. If you take the length of time from announcement of Saturn C5 in 1961 until the first unmanned test launch of Saturn V, that same length of time from the joint NASA/Senate announcement of SLS means the first unmanned test launch should be Sunday, December 10 of this year. This year! Not 2018, and certainly not 2019! And Saturn V was developed from scratch, while SLS is built with Shuttle and Saturn parts. The engine for the upper stage of block 2 was to be J-2X, the newest updated version of J-2 which was the engine for Saturn V 2nd and 3rd stages. SLS block 2B will use RL-10 engines, the newest updated version of engines used by the upper stage for Saturn 1 (not 1B). The core stage is based on a Shuttle external tank, core stage engines are Space Shuttle Main Engines, and boosters are 5-segment solids. So development of SLS was supposed to take less time and cost less than Saturn V. But after adjusting for inflation from the 1960s to today, SLS will cost more than Saturn V! That's insane! Again, if I could speak to Donald Trump, I would ask him to kick some serious ass re SLS.

Not cancelled. Complete SLS faster, cheaper, and more reliable. Yes, all at the same time. No, current costs are not justified. No, speeding up does not cost more. No, doing that does not affect reliability. When you realize it should have launched by now, any further excuse is just that, an excuse.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-14 15:49:01

Robert-

If the SLS CANNOT be built faster and cheaper, then ...what good is it? It's essentially unaffordable as it stands. The proposed cost at >>$1,000,000,000 per launch--I don't see more than one or 2 ever getting built. If it could be reused, I wouldn't have a problem with the individual unit cost to buy it.

kbd512 · 2017-05-14 20:27:48

Oldfart1939,

SLS should never have been started to begin with. There are no payloads for SLS because SLS and Orion have consumed most of the available funding and whatever funding wasn't consumed by SLS or Orion is consumed by ISS and commercial crew. It's too small to send payloads in the tonnage range that NASA says it wants to send to Mars without multiple flights and far too expensive to merely double the tonnage that an expendable Falcon Heavy can send to Mars.

The Fusion Driven Rockets (FDR) will enable 2 Falcon Heavy flights to deliver to Mars what 1 SLS flight can, for about half the price, assuming no reuse. If the funding for SLS was directed towards FDR, then there's no economic use case for SLS. The FDR project was started back in 2011, I think. Killing funding for this Orion/SLS boondoggle would mean we could have a flight demonstrator FDR in about five years or so and a Mars Ascent Vehicle in about ten years. We could have an opposition class mission by 2030. That's the best possible outcome from all this.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-15 07:04:59

kbd512-
I believe this was an attempt by Congress to "salvage" something from the Constellation project cancelled by the Obama Administration. When the cancellation took place I was appalled, but now that SpaceX has made such tremendous progress with the Falcon Heavy, I'd be in favor of letting the SLS system wither away from lack of further funding One of my friends at NASA-Ames was telling me that the Ares I project was actually doomed from the outset by the very overweight Orion capsule design, in addition to the 5 segment SRB involved with extreme vibration issues. SLS is just an outgrowth of the Ares V concept. Typical government bureaucratic design processes involved.

Somehow, the NASA concept of the crewed flight costing an additional $600,000,000 or more blows my mind. That would make this flight cost >> $1.2 Billion!

Yeah, a fusion powered design would be great; I'm not holding my breath until I see one fly, much less the thermonuclear sustained reaction demonstrated. We have yet to see an ignition which liberates more energy than is consumed in getting it to "fire." In conclusion, if the money currently spent on the SLS would be utilized to work on a FDR, I'd be supportive. In the interim, I'd prefer NASA ask SpaceX begin design of a "Super Falcon Heavy,"" something similar to the Falcon X design concept proposed earlier in 2011.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-15 07:15:34

RobertDyck wrote:

Not cancelled. Complete SLS faster, cheaper, and more reliable. Yes, all at the same time. No, current costs are not justified. No, speeding up does not cost more. No, doing that does not affect reliability. When you realize it should have launched by now, any further excuse is just that, an excuse.

The longer Boeing can drag this out, the more it will cost. The hidden benefits of "cost-plus" accounting and contracts. Trump should insist that if they wish to continue, the cost-plus hooey needs to vanish. This rocket design, put into full scale production on an assembly-line basis, should cost ~ $200,000,000 a copy. Zubrin states in his books that the joke around Martin Marietta was that "overhead was Martin's biggest product."
I'd rather see engineers & scientists getting paid than the internal mid-level managers and accountants required for "cost-plus" contracts.

kbd512 · 2017-05-15 11:32:38

Oldfart1939,

SpaceX is already working on ITS and I don't see much point in a "Son-of-SLS" rocket.

If MSNW LLC is given adequate funding to build ground and flight test demonstrators of their Fusion Driven Rocket (FDR), I think there's a good chance of having a flight ready upper stage for missions in the 2030's time frame.

The key points to the FDR design are no electrical power generation from fusion and no attempt to contain the plasma for more time than is required to expel it from the rocket nozzle. The power source is solar and the thrusting periods are measured in days vs months with SEP. It's using superheated electromagnetically expelled plasma for thrust. The plasma is generated by first charging a bank of super capacitors using the solar array, next injecting a D-T pellet, then dumping the electricity from the super caps into an electromagnet to create an exponentially increasing magnetic field generated by crushing metal foil around the D-T pellet, thus fusing the injected D-T pellet, and finally expelling the hot plasma with a second set of electromagnets. That last step is key to the reduction in thermal management requirements. Basically, it's using supersonic implosion with electromagnetic fields to create fusion vs fission.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-15 12:57:30

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceX is already working on ITS and I don't see much point in a "Son-of-SLS" rocket.

Falcon Heavy can only launch a single Dragon one-way to Mars. That won't deliver much, certainly not enough for a human mission to Mars. ITS is huge, designed to launch Mars Colonial Transport. ITS will be very expensive to build; SpaceX has shown they earn money to pay for these things, so it'll be a while before they can afford to build and launch the first ITS. And when they do, MCT is designed to carry 100 settlers to Mars. And MCT requires a propellant depot on Mars to refill propellant tanks for the return to Earth. That means habitats and life support for those first 100 settlers must be in place before the first MCT launches. As well as propellant production and storage on Mars.

Bottom line: we need something in between Falcon Heavy and ITS. Something about the size of SLS. That must build the initial human base on Mars, and prepare to receive the first MCT. You could argue for orbital assembly in LEO using multiple Falcon Heavy or New Glenn launch vehicles. But we do need something.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-15 14:57:05

RobertDyck wrote:

Bottom line: we need something in between Falcon Heavy and ITS. Something about the size of SLS. That must build the initial human base on Mars, and prepare to receive the first MCT. You could argue for orbital assembly in LEO using multiple Falcon Heavy or New Glenn launch vehicles. But we do need something.

I'm in full agreement Robert. I've described in several of my posts how this might be accomplished using a combination of orbital assembly, ISS participation, but with a significantly enlarged Dragon 2 capsule and associated but integral trunk extension. The 7 meter diameter Falcon X would be ideal for this intermediate step; it would allow a significant size crew and supplies transported to Mars' surface. The Falcon X Heavy could accomplish what's necessary in the immediately foreseeable future. If we wait around for fusion propulsion, it'll be a long wait. Not saying we shouldn't be funding it--just that we need to forge ahead with the existing technology as an intermediate step.

RobertDyck · 2017-05-15 15:19:37

Oldfart1939 wrote:

The 7 meter diameter Falcon X would be ideal for this intermediate step

Oooo! Falcon X! Would be nice.

Could Trump use that as a hammer to beat down the guys working on SLS? My guess is those members of Congress (representatives and senators) who supported SLS will not want to give it up. If it can't be completed quickly and affordably, it will have to be cancelled. I'm hoping Trump can do the former. My fear is EM-1 and EM-2, then neither SLS nor Orion will ever fly again. Orion should be cancelled, but considering the amount of money already spent on SLS, I would prefer it become practical.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-15 17:12:05

Robert-

From the illustrations, it appears Falcon X could have a 10 meter diameter payload! The "Zubrin Tuna Can!) I'd be happy with the 7 meter diameter spacecraft.

louis · 2017-05-15 17:29:54

Yes, with you on that. Have long been a fan of orbital assembly. I would add multiple pre-landing of supplies - that's v. important as well to break down the task before we get to the era of super ITS style launchers.

It's not clear whether there is going to be an intermediate element to Musk's plans or will be just go straight to ITS (currently scheduled for a mid 20s launch I believe).

https://www.wired.com/2016/09/elon-musk-colonize-mars/

Oldfart1939 wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:

Bottom line: we need something in between Falcon Heavy and ITS. Something about the size of SLS. That must build the initial human base on Mars, and prepare to receive the first MCT. You could argue for orbital assembly in LEO using multiple Falcon Heavy or New Glenn launch vehicles. But we do need something.
I'm in full agreement Robert. I've described in several of my posts how this might be accomplished using a combination of orbital assembly, ISS participation, but with a significantly enlarged Dragon 2 capsule and associated but integral trunk extension. The 7 meter diameter Falcon X would be ideal for this intermediate step; it would allow a significant size crew and supplies transported to Mars' surface. The Falcon X Heavy could accomplish what's necessary in the immediately foreseeable future. If we wait around for fusion propulsion, it'll be a long wait. Not saying we shouldn't be funding it--just that we need to forge ahead with the existing technology as an intermediate step.

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-15 17:59:00

Just an update here: SpaceX just had another major satellite launch success with the Innmarsat-5 Flight 4 launch.

View it here: https://youtu.be/ynMYE64IEKs

SpaceNut · 2017-05-15 19:29:50

Key pieces from RobertDyck link:

A number of concepts and ideas have been presented by SpaceX over the years, starting with the evolution of its Merlin engine to become the most-powerful single-chamber engine ever built in order to power Falcon X and Falcon XX rockets that could launch 140 metric tons into orbit. In recent years, SpaceX turned its back on the Merlin 2 engine design in favor of a methane-fueled engine called Raptor.
SpaceX performed concept studies of scaling up Merlin 1 design components to build a large single chamber LOX/RP-1 engine that became known as Merlin 2. The engine was conceptualized for use on future heavy and super-heavy launchers (Falcon X & XX). Details on the design of the Merlin 2 were provided in 2010 at the AIAA Joint Propulsion conference.
Firing at full throttle, Merlin 2 would reach a sea level thrust of 7,560 Kilonewtons with a specific impulse of 285 seconds, increasing to 8,540 Kilonewtons and 321 seconds in vacuum. At 100%, Merlin 2 operates at an increased propellant flowrate of 2,750 Kilograms per second and a chamber pressure of 137.9 bar. Burning at full thrust, Merlin 2 would have been more powerful than the F-1 engine used on the Saturn V rocket.
Falcon X is a two-stage launch vehicle standing more than 75 meters tall with a core diameter of approximately 6 meters.
Falcon XX is a single core launch vehicle with a diameter of 10 meters and an estimated length of about 100 meters using six Merlin 2 engines.
Details on the MCT have not been given except for a few hints that indicate the the MCT spacecraft would be ‘100 times the size of an SUV’ and launch on top of a launch vehicle based on, but much bigger than the existing Falcon 9. It has also been confirmed that this launch vehicle would use the Raptor engine. With Merlin 2 being replaced by the revised Raptor design using LOX/Methane propellants, the Falcon X and XX concepts as presented in 2010 are no longer of any use.

Work on the Raptor engines scaled for the BFR would be good for mars landing and take off for sure....

RobertDyck · 2017-05-15 21:42:04

The habitat described in Mars Direct had an outside diameter of 8.4 metres, inside diameter of 8.0 metres. That allows for 0.2 meters = 20 cm = 7.874" thick walls. Lots of room for thermal insulation and micrometeoroid shield. That makes the outside diameter equal to the core stage of the Ares launch vehicle also described in Mars Direct. Shuttle's external tank was 8.4 meter diameter, so the plan was the core stage of Ares would be based on Shuttle's ET. SLS being developed today will have an 8.4 metre diameter core stage. Saturn V 1st and 2nd stages were 10 metre diameter, and "Ares V" under the Constellation program also had 10 metre diameter core stage.

According to the page on "Spaceflight 101", Falcon X would have had a core stage diameter of 6 metres. However, note the payload fairing is wider. From the diagram it looks like Falcon X payload fairing diameter is 10 metres. Area is Pi*R², so 8 metre diameter gives 50.265 square metres = 541 square feet. 10 metre diameter = 78.5 square metres = 845.4 square feet. For the upper floor alone. That's a significant increase.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-05-15 21:46:57)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-16 08:48:33

The Falcon X concept vehicle should be explored further by SpaceX. In addition to making possible a Mars mission, it could become a major commercial launch vehicle a lot sooner than Blue Origin's New Glenn.
This would also enable the Apollo 11 redux pretty well!

SpaceNut · 2017-05-16 17:04:45

If we look at the sum of the pieces there are some items which if sold to other could be used as meantion with the Orion capsule but there are also SME's which Boeing could intergrate for a Delta IV heavy launcher for the Orion for the human rating thing.

The ATK SRB's are expensive but powerful I am sure that a design would and could make use of them...

To which the engine work can be passed on to those that want to do a technology transfer....

Oldfart1939 · 2017-05-17 11:53:29

This new proposal from NASA of building a lunar orbiting space station as part of a Mars and outer solar system step-stone hearkens back to the "Battlestar Galactica" concept in the 90 Day plan rejected by Congress 27 years ago! What geniuses in Houston continue this fantasy style of so-called "planning." This will never be funded.

louis · 2017-05-17 15:06:23

Quite!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

This new proposal from NASA of building a lunar orbiting space station as part of a Mars and outer solar system step-stone hearkens back to the "Battlestar Galactica" concept in the 90 Day plan rejected by Congress 27 years ago! What geniuses in Houston continue this fantasy style of so-called "planning." This will never be funded.

SpaceNut · 2017-11-13 20:44:22

After the most recent rah rah rah speech about more delays to the launch of the first SLS, NASA Moves Up Critical Crew Safety Launch Abort Test

This full-stress test of the LAS, called Ascent Abort Test 2 (AA-2), will see a booster, provided by Orbital ATK, launch from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, carrying a fully functional LAS and a 22,000 pound Orion test vehicle to an altitude of 32,000 feet at Mach 1.3 (over 1,000 miles an hour). "No matter what approach you take, having to move a 22,000-pound spacecraft away quickly from a catastrophic event, like a potential rocket failure, is extremely challenging."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2017-05-13 09:44:07

Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#2 2017-05-13 12:27:25

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#3 2017-05-13 12:33:46

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#4 2017-05-13 15:38:28

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#5 2017-05-13 16:16:13

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#6 2017-05-14 13:35:02

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#7 2017-05-14 14:27:48

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#8 2017-05-14 15:49:01

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#9 2017-05-14 20:27:48

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#10 2017-05-15 07:04:59

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#11 2017-05-15 07:15:34

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#12 2017-05-15 11:32:38

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#13 2017-05-15 12:57:30

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#14 2017-05-15 14:57:05

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#15 2017-05-15 15:19:37

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#16 2017-05-15 17:12:05

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#17 2017-05-15 17:29:54

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#18 2017-05-15 17:59:00

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#19 2017-05-15 19:29:50

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#20 2017-05-15 21:42:04

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#21 2017-05-16 08:48:33

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#22 2017-05-16 17:04:45

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#23 2017-05-17 11:53:29

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#24 2017-05-17 15:06:23

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

#25 2017-11-13 20:44:22

Re: Viability of NASA SLS launch system; should it be cancelled?

Board footer