Space Launch System

SpaceNut · 2021-07-25 21:39:07

With the Europa clipper being moved to the Falcon 9 Heavy launch there is a free cargo ship for the gateway to be made use of....

SpaceNut · 2021-09-01 18:45:37

am not surprised with the NASA’s SLS rocket will not fly until next spring, or more likely summer of 2022 so next will follow a request for more money.

RobertDyck · 2021-10-01 12:57:43

On January 16, post #105, Mr Johnson said...

GW Johnson wrote:

If you didn't already know, Boeing corporate management/headquarters is now in Chicago, far away from their engineers in Seattle, Wichita, North Carolina, or any other Boeing location where things are designed or built. Said corporate management has recently boasted that they turned Boeing from a high-quality-engineering outfit to a high-return-on-investment outfit. And the CEO's are no longer a short walk away from the chief engineers. It kinda shows, don't it?

This stuck with me. It reminds me of a scene in a movie: "Disclosure" released 1994. Two individuals competing for promotion to vice president. The man focused on building a quality product (in 1994 CD-ROM drives were a big deal), the woman focused on cutting cost for high-return-on-investment. However, her cost cutting efforts ended up costing the company more.
(click image YouTube video, 4 minutes 24 seconds)

SpaceNut · 2021-10-01 21:07:14

EGS, Jacobs completing first round of Artemis 1 pre-launch integrated tests prior to Orion stacking

Spacex would have built it and flown it to test it, then built another to perfect the construction a bit more just to do the same until they got it right.

RobertDyck · 2021-10-01 23:10:27

I was a child through the space program of the 1960s. On January 10, 1962, NASA approved Saturn C-5 as the launch vehicle to carry astronauts to the Moon. This required new engines: F-1 for 1st stage, J-2 for 2nd and 3rd stages. No rocket that large had ever been built before. Saturn 1 had been built with a cluster of Redstone tanks, and upper stage with RL10 engines. Saturn V required new manufacturing facilities, new vertical assembly building, new mobile launcher, new crawler to carry the mobile launcher to the pad, new launch pads, new launch control building, and new mission control in Houston. Testing required new test stands for the engines, and new test stands for each stage. First unmanned test launch was Apollo 4 on November 9, 1967. Total from approval to first launch: 5 years, 10 months. (Less a day, but months don't have consistent number of days.)

NASA announced SLS on September 14, 2011. This would have a core stage based on the external tank of Space Shuttle, with same diameter and manufactured in the same factory. It would use Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME), and not just similar design, it would use engines stripped off Shuttles. It would use a pair of SRBs. Although Shuttle used 4-segments SRBs, the 5-segment version was proposed and studied during Shuttle operations as an upgrade, and was actively developed for Ares V and Aries I under Constellation. A 5-segment SRB was used for the test launch of Ares I-X. The upper stage would use J-2X engines, which were updated version of the J-2 engine from Saturn V. J-2X had been actively developed under Constellation. An interim upper stage would be the upper stage from Delta IV. They changed their mind about the upper stage, instead the Exploration Upper Stage would use RL10-3C engines, which were already in active use. Manufacturing facilities already existed. Test facilities already existed. Launch facilities already existed. Launch control and mission control already existed. SLS Block 1 was supposed to launch in December 2017. That would be 6 years and 3 months later. That still hasn't happened. In two weeks it'll be an even 10 years and still no launch. Not even Block 1 with the interim upper stage, aka Delta IV upper stage.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-02 08:26:40

Delay 1. 2004 started the Frankenstein Constellation of which through the arguing of man rated Nasa went through development on several first stage engines.
Delay 2 With the SRB going through the same re-engineering changing from reusable to dispose, grain changes, segment growth to 5 a change to the electronic controls, aft skirt and nose as well and since then ATK was sold.
Delay 3. Down selected first stage engine ended up as the SSME which went through more re-engineering of the brain, construction to make it less expensive to throw away.
Delay 4 The large shuttle tank had to be re-enforced for end engine loading and stacking of which this led to the new tank build and processing facility where the technology used to make the tank was changed to stir welding ect.
Delay 5 you noted with the J2 engine revisit to alter it to the j2x and so forth with changes made for increase power which in the end was changed due to engines for first launch.
Delay 6 upper stage tank was effected by the engine change as well as the inter change section to adapt to the next stage.
Delay 7 changes made for the diet of the much to heavy to use constellation of the capsule which morphed into Orion
Delay 8 continued with creep of design issues continue to current

RobertDyck · 2021-10-02 10:03:30

Oh, you want to include Constellation? Vision for Space Exploration was announced January 14, 2004. Ares V was originally going to be based on Ares from Mars Direct, so the core stage would be the same diameter as the external tank of Shuttle. But someone in NASA insisted expanding it to 10 metre diameter because Saturn V had that diameter. The first stage of Saturn V used RP1/LOX, not liquid hydrogen, and Saturn V didn't use Solid Rocket Boosters, but they made the change anyway.

Sales people from Boeing convinced NASA to use RS-68 engines instead of developing new engines, but the engine guys at NASA wanted a new engine, so they created the excuse RS-68 required man rating. RS-68 had been optimized as expendable first stage engines. It didn't have the highest specific impulse, but cost of additional propellant and additional tank size was less than the cost to increase Isp. So RS-68 was optimized for lowest cost of the total stage. Since this engine would be used for the core stage of Ares V which was expendable, that still applied. But engine guys at NASA didn't care, they wanted to make an engine like SSME with 50% more thrust, so they modified RS-68 to be SSME with 50% more thrust. That dramatically increased development time and cost. The whole point of selecting RS-68 was to avoid that!

Then there was the Aries I fiasco. Originally NASA intended to use one of the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV). That was either Atlas V or Delta IV. Development was paid for, just use one of them. But they weren't man rated, so sales people from ATK argued that their SRB was already man rated since it was part of Shuttle. Using a giant solid rocket for human space flight was highly questionable. It couldn't be throttled, couldn't be aborted once launched, and most importantly had extreme vibration. Without the mass of the Shuttle orbiter and more importantly the External Tank, that vibration would be unacceptable. But sales people convinced NASA to ignore that, use their vehicle instead. Of course development of Ares I ended up costing more than man rating Atlas V. I mention Atlas V because it was less expensive than Delta IV, and the original Atlas launched John Glenn into orbit in a Mercury capsule. In an attempt to dampen the vibrations of Ares I, they deliberately made the Orion capsule heavier. Heavier! That's not the right direction for a spacecraft. Finally the test of Ares I-X showed the vibration was so great that if any astronauts would have been onboard they wouldn't have been able to see their instruments or operate the controls.

Development of the Orion capsule was so expensive that after developing the capsule and it's abort system, they didn't have any money left to develop the service module. Lockheed-Martin asked Congress for more money, but Congress said no. First phase of selection for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, Boeing had proposed a capsule that looks like the Apollo CSM, but Lockheed-Martin proposed a mini-shuttle. A shuttle to go to the Moon and back... bad idea. So for second phase, Lockheed-Martin completely changed their proposal to a capsule that looks like Apollo. Corporate executives noticed NASA liked Boeing's design, so they said "me too! pick me!" Orion was heavier than CST-100 (now Starliner) but was chosen because the service module would use liquid methane / liquid oxygen rather than MMH/N2O4. However, when Lockheed-Martin ran out of money for Orion, they made a last minute change to MMH/N2O4. But it was too little, too late; they completely ran out of money. So NASA made a deal with Europe: instead of Europe paying for access to ISS, they would provide free of charge service modules for the ATV cargo ship. These service modules used MMH/N2O4 and were not optimized for Orion, but could get the job done. They're heavier than a new service module using MMH/N2O4 and carry less propellant, certainly lower performance than LCH4/LOX, but better than nothing.

Orion was tested in space. It was launched into LEO using Delta IV Heavy. So Orion has been waiting for SLS ever since then. But it's still waiting.

President Obama was elected in 2008, sworn-in January 2009. One of the first things he did was cancel Constellation. I didn't blame him.

But the Senate revived it. This time they changed the core stage back to 8.4 metre diameter, same as Shuttle's ET. And switched engines back to SSME, and even stated engines stripped off Shuttle orbiters would be used so no engine development required at all. Under Constellation, Ares V did not have to be man rated, so the problem with SRBs with O-rings beside a liquid hydrogen tank would be avoided. With SLS, instead of launching astronauts with Ares I, they would use SLS block 1 with the smaller upper stage. (Delta IV upper stage) So the heavy lift launch vehicle was the same as the crew launch vehicle, just different upper stage and SLS block 2 would use advanced SRBs that still haven't been developed yet.

Counting from January 14, 2004, that's 17 years and 9 months... and counting.

Oldfart1939 · 2021-10-02 11:01:07

That's a great history lesson--one the Politicians should be forced fed.

We wind up with a heavier than needed Orion capsule, an upper stage that's anemic, and SRBs with O-rings that haven't been man rated.

Totally FUBAR. A rocket designed with components created by Politicians

GW Johnson · 2021-10-02 12:53:16

One additional thing got forgotten in these descriptions of a really sordid history: vibration and instability increased with the 5-segment vs 4-segment SRB's. The vibration is still there and bad. The instability got treated by means I have never seen explained. Might be some baffles between segments, I dunno. They haven't blown any up in the testing. Bad instability usually blows up in a test, which is how I know they did "something".

As for the O-rings in the joints, I stand by what I have said for some decades now: you actually have more reliability from a single O-ring seal at each joint, provided you pressure check it once, before it leaves the assembly building. A properly-designed O-ring joint will hold at 1000's of psi, if it passes leak check at about a dozen psi. The leak check pressure pre-seats the O-ring on the correct side of its groove. Nothing has to move, and so it cannot break, soaked-out cold.

The failure rates of this design approach are far less than 1 in a million, with tactical motor mass manufacture. Tactical motors by specification MIL STD 210 must function from 145 F soak all the way down to -65 F soak. (Earlier in my career, that was 160 F down to -65 F.) All the tactical motor manufacturers knew this at the time. The big motor manufacturers should have known as well. NASA didn't know shit about solids, because nobody at NASA ever built any. NASA forced Thiokol to build a 2-O-ring joint out of ignorance and technical arrogance that was totally unsupported by any facts. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for the Challenger disaster to have ever occurred!

It got worse with 3 O-rings. They just never flew cold again, which is why the Challenger disaster never repeated. That being said, why would anyone ever believe the 5 segment SRB's with multi-O-ring joints are any safer than what destroyed Challenger? They are not! They are worse.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2021-10-02 12:54:31)

SpaceNut · 2021-10-21 20:01:44

The ship is stacked as the video shows.

SpaceNut · 2021-10-23 14:21:36

Looks like a time table for launch has been set. Artemis I mission will launch the next generation of deep space operations NASA is now targeting February 2022 for the launch of its powerful Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.

NASA Headquarters Tom Whitmeyer told reporters that the stacked rocket and crew capsule will roll out to the Launch Pad 398 in late December for testing and west dress rehearsal testing in January before going back for more checkouts followed by another move onto the pad.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-11 16:48:47

More money to stop a delay of launch seems to be a reoccuring theme... NASA Delays Return Trip to the Moon Until 2025

On November 9, the space agency's head, Bill Nelson, confirmed the news at a press conference. . According to the BBC, the delay comes as little surprise due to funding problems and a legal battle over the landing vehicle.

Legal battles not you fell for the BFR and now you can not land a crew when using the senate launch system...

SpaceNut · 2021-11-21 20:32:08

Still waiting for the first real flight to occur with the first crewed Orion spacecraft that will fly four people on the Artemis 2 mission.
Orion spacecraft production continues for Artemis 2 and 3

Meanwhile, the projected time frame for Artemis 1 continued to move from 2020 to now early 2022, and procurement of the non-core avionics was also started. Early in 2021, NASA was still trading options back and forth between reusing the Artemis 1 non-core avionics or a new set; however, Marasia said that the agency has since decided to wait for the non-core avionics flying on the Artemis 1 spacecraft.

Can you say heel dragging....

Current schedule projections show that Lockheed Martin will finish Orion integration for Artemis 2 and be ready to hand the spacecraft over to Exploration Ground Systems in the second half of 2023. “It’s about mid-summer of 2023 based on, again, we’re dependent on the Artemis 1 launch, so that’s where it’s falling out right now,” Marasia said.

Still on the slow train

The timing of the Artemis 1 launch and mission will directly affect the Artemis 2 Orion’s schedule; if that permits, and Lockheed Martin was to reach the mid-summer 2023 date for handover to EGS, that would support launch readiness for Artemis 2 sometime between the very end of 2023 and the updated agency baseline commitment of no later than May 2024 that was publicly announced by the space agency on November 9.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-18 22:43:19

Problem with Artemis hardware to push NASA moon shot until at least March

While testing, though, one of what NASA calls the “brains” that control one of the four RS-25 engines at the base of the core stage for the rocket has malfunctioned, according to an update on NASA’s website. Each of the engine flight controllers have a primary and backup communication system with the SLS rocket, and for the controller on engine four, the backup system kept failing.

wonder what happened in assembly.

Artemis I is an uncrewed flight to circle the moon and back. Artemis II will be a crewed flight to the moon without a landing targeting May 2024, and the Artemis III mission which seeks to return humans including the first woman to the lunar surface since 1972 is now targeting 2025.

so we have 3 scheduled launches and then what?

tahanson43206 · 2021-12-19 08:02:41

For SpaceNut re #164

First, thanks for these updates with a bit more detail on the failure at system integration time.

You asked what happened during assembly, and I would guess that assembly went smoothly, with all steps followed with NASA precision.

The problem showed up at system integration. By definition, you (as a system designer) cannot ** know ** that two separate systems are going to be able to work together until you test them. Presumably the separate components were rigorously tested before they were connected, but I would guess that a test device substituting for the real thing is ** not ** the ** same ** as the real thing.

The only new factor is the cable run between the rocket and the engines. No doubt the cables were tested six ways to Sunday as well, but despite all the planning and testing, a problem ** still ** showed up.

This ** has ** to be aggravating for the folks working on this system. It is already far behind the competition, and this is just one more sign that the team simply isn't up to the game they are in.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-19 10:38:05

Sub systems tests need to be altered if it proves to be something that can only be found currently via integration at this time. As some one that tested individual cards that would be put into an assembly it can be done. Most likely its a cable length signal drop issue that is not accounted for during sub system testing.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-20 14:50:10

Last week, NASA awarded one of its main subcontractors on the SLS project, Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC), a $3.2 billion contract to build booster rockets for five SLS rockets that will participate in the Project Artemis moon program.

For each of the Artemis IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII, Northrop Grumman will build a pair of rocket boosters to help lift the massive rockets into orbit, then send them on to the moon. The company will also build a test booster for the Artemis IX "Booster Obsolescence and Life Extension" (BOLE) program -- so 11 boosters in all. Specifically, each rocket booster will cost taxpayers -- and benefit Northrop Grumman -- more than $290 million.
To put that number in context, when NASA hired SpaceX to launch its Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) U spacecraft in September, the total cost of the Falcon Heavy rocket that will do the work -- including the core stage and two side boosters (all of which are reusable) was just $152.6 million.
Yes, you read that right. For the cost of just one Northrop Grumman booster rocket (which will be discarded after launch), NASA could buy two entire SpaceX rocketships. For what Northrop is charging to help launch one single SLS, NASA could launch four Falcon Heavy missions.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-23 19:13:58

From JWTS

GW Johnson wrote:

Myself, I think the deployment is very likely to screw up. I also think it likely that they won't be able to fix all the screw-ups from the ground. Which necessitates a repair mission.
Question 1 -- if SLS/Orion cannot reach Earth L2 to mount a repair mission on JWST, then what good is it?
Question 2 -- if SLS/Orion can reach Earth L2, then just exactly how is an astronaut going to anchor himself in order to exert the forces necessary to make "whatever" repairs. SLS/Orion does NOT have a manipulator arm with handholds and footholds on it.
Just asking.
GW

That is a great question in which the gateway was planned to be with in as well and SLS was supposedly capable of getting to it.

SpaceNut · 2021-12-29 10:12:22

Oldfart1939 · 2022-01-02 10:49:19

Back in Ancient Times, when I was still an Undergraduate at University of Colorado in Boulder (1957), and still an Aerospace Engineering student, the Government funded space program was floundering and many of the rockets were jokingly referred to by students and faculty members as "Civil Service Rockets," based on the then prevalent view of "They don't work and they can't be fired." Only after the first satellite launch was given to Redstone Arsenal and Wernher von Braun to fix, did the program start moving forward in more than inchworm steps.

This appellation seems kind of appropriate for the current SLS. The first launch has been postponed numerous times for more testing and interminable delays. I am sad that the main contractor, Boeing, has become something other that our nation's top military and launch vehicle contractor.

SpaceNut · 2022-01-02 12:00:29

The Senate approved Launch System contracts are still rolling with little urgency to actually produce anything fast. Since they have no oars in the water they feel no obligation to make anything happen as its not there money they are working with.

Since Total: 2011–2021 nasa has recieved $21,209.2 (millions) with this being the adjusted totals $23,011.2 (millions).

it was 2019 when Nasa started prebuying long lead time parts for its build

There are many oars being used in the build not just Boeings not only impart to the many flavors of the rockets design and capabilities.

diagram_comparing_sls_versions.jpg?itok=JcsQFdNk

GW Johnson · 2022-01-02 12:42:18

At the time the events happened that OF describes in post 170, Von Braun was working for the US Army, not NASA. NASA had not yet even been created. He had a lot more independence working in an Army lab facility in Huntsville, AL, and was able to squirrel-back a Redstone modified into a Jupiter-C, for possible launch of a small satellite. When USN's scientist-developed (not many rocket engineers in civilian life in 1955-1960 time frame) Vanguard failed first time up, the government turned to the Army and Von Braun to answer Sputnik with Explorer 1.

Not many people know that Eisenhower deliberately let Sputnik 1 be the first satellite, in order to have the open skies policy de-facto approved by the Soviets. Von Braun was ready to launch in 1956, although Vanguard was not. Sputnik flew in October 1957. Turns out Vanguard was still not ready in late 1957 either, but it did later fly satellites a couple of times. !958 or 1959 I think it was, although I would have to go look that up, to be sure.

GW

SpaceNut · 2022-01-12 18:38:51

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

Many changes have happened since this original thread, the Space Launch System a US super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle that replaces the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, which were cancelled along with the rest of the Constellation program. The successor to the Ares rocket family is the SLS, a more versatile vehicle designed to launch both crew and cargo, similar to the original Ares IV concept. In year 2010, President Barack Obama announced a proposal to cancel the original Constellation program effective with the U.S. 2011 fiscal year budget, an SLS system will launch to the Gateway station, during the Trump era we seen the Private sector grow with groups like Space-X and Musk launch to the ISS, the Orion survived any cuts, it is a human spaceflight vehicle developed by NASA originally intended to be used on the Constellation Program.
NASA prepares SLS for first crewed Artemis missions
https://www.moondaily.com/reports/NASA_ … s_999.html
As teams continue to prepare NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) rocket for its debut flight with the launch of Artemis I, NASA and its partners across the country have made great progress building the rocket for Artemis II, the first crewed Artemis mission. The team is also manufacturing and testing major parts for Artemis missions III, IV and V.
"The Space Launch System team is not just building one rocket but manufacturing several rockets for exploration missions and future SLS flights beyond the initial Artemis launch," said John Honeycutt, SLS program manager at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. "The Artemis I mission is the first in a series of increasingly complex missions that will extend our presence on the Moon. The SLS rocket's unprecedented power and capabilities will send missions farther and faster throughout the solar system."
With its two solid rocket boosters and four RS-25 engines, SLS produces more than 8.8 million pounds of thrust to launch each Artemis mission beyond Earth's orbit and onward to the Moon. The rocket features some of the largest, most advanced, and most reliable hardware elements ever built for space exploration.
To power the agency's next-generation deep space missions, SLS delivers propulsion in phases. At liftoff, the core stage with its four RS-25 engines and the twin boosters fire to propel SLS off the launch pad into orbit. Once in orbit, the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) provides the in-space propulsion to send NASA's Orion spacecraft and its crew on a precise trajectory toward the Moon.
The first piece of rocket hardware - the ICPS - for Artemis II arrived in Florida July 28, 2021. It is undergoing final preparations at lead contractors Boeing and United Launch Alliance's (ULA) facilities and will soon be delivered nearby to NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The ICPS fires its RL10 engine, provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne, to send the Orion spacecraft toward the Moon. ULA is already building the Artemis III ICPS in its factory in Decatur, Alabama.
"The Space Launch System is a highly capable launch vehicle purposely designed and rigorously tested to safely transport people, large cargo, and flagship science missions to deep space destinations," said John Blevins, SLS chief engineer at Marshall. "From the beginning, the SLS rocket was built to first safely send astronauts to space, and at the same time, to evolve to an even more powerful configuration that can support a variety of missions."

SpaceNut · 2022-01-12 18:41:35

With all the changes to create a commercial market of vendors the military old school has not learned anything about cost control or of reusability...

Nasa still has to build the upgraded version of the upper stage still for the next flight which is a bit larger to be able to get men to the moon and back.

Oldfart1939 · 2022-01-12 19:25:54

Vanguard was the Civil Service Rocket for the Aerospace Engineering students at CU, Boulder in 1957. "It won't work, and you can't fire it."

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2021-07-25 21:39:07

Re: Space Launch System

#152 2021-09-01 18:45:37

Re: Space Launch System

#153 2021-10-01 12:57:43

Re: Space Launch System

#154 2021-10-01 21:07:14

Re: Space Launch System

#155 2021-10-01 23:10:27

Re: Space Launch System

#156 2021-10-02 08:26:40

Re: Space Launch System

#157 2021-10-02 10:03:30

Re: Space Launch System

#158 2021-10-02 11:01:07

Re: Space Launch System

#159 2021-10-02 12:53:16

Re: Space Launch System

#160 2021-10-21 20:01:44

Re: Space Launch System

#161 2021-10-23 14:21:36

Re: Space Launch System

#162 2021-11-11 16:48:47

Re: Space Launch System

#163 2021-11-21 20:32:08

Re: Space Launch System

#164 2021-12-18 22:43:19

Re: Space Launch System

#165 2021-12-19 08:02:41

Re: Space Launch System

#166 2021-12-19 10:38:05

Re: Space Launch System

#167 2021-12-20 14:50:10

Re: Space Launch System

#168 2021-12-23 19:13:58

Re: Space Launch System

#169 2021-12-29 10:12:22

Re: Space Launch System

#170 2022-01-02 10:49:19

Re: Space Launch System

#171 2022-01-02 12:00:29

Re: Space Launch System

#172 2022-01-02 12:42:18

Re: Space Launch System

#173 2022-01-12 18:38:51

Re: Space Launch System

#174 2022-01-12 18:41:35

Re: Space Launch System

#175 2022-01-12 19:25:54

Re: Space Launch System

Board footer