Is NASA’s SLS Doomed?
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 225
Likes: 21
From: London, England
NASA needs to be bold in this era of intense and sometimes highly critical scrutiny. Not to mention a distinct lack of consistent political support. Different times.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,679
Likes: 3,341
From: Everett, WA
Turns out there is another brilliant engineering design decision that's forcing further postponement. The Launch Termination System electrical system is completely independent of the rest of the launch systems electronics (for good reason). As a result, it's battery powered.
So far, so good. Rational system design.
Not so rational - the battery is life limited, with a maximum of 25 days from installation to when it needs to be serviced (just increased from 20 days in the last couple weeks) - and it's not serviceable on the pad
. So once the launch system leaves the Vehicle Assembly Building, they only have 25 days to launch it, or it needs to be returned to the VAB. That is simply horrible engineering - the sort of thing a first year engineering student would know better. $4 Billion plus per launch, and they couldn't be bothered to provision the Launch Termination System to be serviceable on the pad 
.
So far, so good. Rational system design.
Not so rational - the battery is life limited, with a maximum of 25 days from installation to when it needs to be serviced (just increased from 20 days in the last couple weeks) - and it's not serviceable on the pad
. So once the launch system leaves the Vehicle Assembly Building, they only have 25 days to launch it, or it needs to be returned to the VAB. That is simply horrible engineering - the sort of thing a first year engineering student would know better. $4 Billion plus per launch, and they couldn't be bothered to provision the Launch Termination System to be serviceable on the pad .
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,290
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
Artemis 1 now for sale on craigslist:
https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/m...530346653.html
Doesn't mention the battery however.
https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/m...530346653.html
Doesn't mention the battery however.
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Turns out there is another brilliant engineering design decision that's forcing further postponement. The Launch Termination System electrical system is completely independent of the rest of the launch systems electronics (for good reason). As a result, it's battery powered.
So far, so good. Rational system design.
Not so rational - the battery is life limited, with a maximum of 25 days from installation to when it needs to be serviced (just increased from 20 days in the last couple weeks) - and it's not serviceable on the pad. So once the launch system leaves the Vehicle Assembly Building, they only have 25 days to launch it, or it needs to be returned to the VAB. That is simply horrible engineering - the sort of thing a first year engineering student would know better. $4 Billion plus per launch, and they couldn't be bothered to provision the Launch Termination System to be serviceable on the pad .
So far, so good. Rational system design.
Not so rational - the battery is life limited, with a maximum of 25 days from installation to when it needs to be serviced (just increased from 20 days in the last couple weeks) - and it's not serviceable on the pad
. So once the launch system leaves the Vehicle Assembly Building, they only have 25 days to launch it, or it needs to be returned to the VAB. That is simply horrible engineering - the sort of thing a first year engineering student would know better. $4 Billion plus per launch, and they couldn't be bothered to provision the Launch Termination System to be serviceable on the pad .I haven't looked any further but this be a temporary requirement that was imposed by the USAF rather than something should (or perhaps could) have been foreseen at the design stage.
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,148
Likes: 741
From: UK
I have to wonder why NASA didn't start by building a Saturn V - they surely must have kept all the blue-prints? They know it works, and must have gigabytes of data from all the Saturn V launches, that could be used to improve that vehicle where possible with advances in technology and material science since the 1960's.
However, let's be honest; the money spent would have gone a long way to solving other far more pressing and important problems, e.g. renewable energy.
We really don't need to go back to the moon, or any other moon, to see if there is life there: we need to sort out life on this planet first.
However, let's be honest; the money spent would have gone a long way to solving other far more pressing and important problems, e.g. renewable energy.
We really don't need to go back to the moon, or any other moon, to see if there is life there: we need to sort out life on this planet first.
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
I have to wonder why NASA didn't start by building a Saturn V
Every single electronic component is 60 years out of date and replacing them would need every part, and the sub-systems, systems etc, re certified and tested.
Most if the manufacturers, lowest-bidder, of the 5 million components won’t be in business any more, or the chains to certify their products if they were.
Nobody to manufacture the engines - and they wouldn’t use the methods, equipment or alloys used then - leading back to the certification issue.
Look at the problems they’ve had with the SLS using engines, boosters and electronics they already have - then multiply them a million fold.
might as well ask Boeing to build new 707. They wouldn’t be able to source the parts, have the equipment or jigs to put it together, meet the H&R rules to do so - and then the FAA wouldn’t clear anyone to fly on it anyway..
Joined: Mar 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 225
Likes: 21
From: London, England
Indeed. Sadly the 'correct' procedure would have been to build upon the success of the Apollo program and develop the technology over the following decades. Onwards towards Mars...rather than just stop and take a different route (Space Shuttle). However, the money (i.e. political will) was not there. So far as I can tell, it's barely there now. 
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 6,729
Likes: 104
From: The Winchester
Looks like next launch attempt 23 or 27th September, if work being done on the pad to fix last weeks problems succeed and the US Space Force/Eastern Range give a waiver on the battery reset.
NASA targets next Artemis I launch attempt, but a lot has to go right | collectSPACE
NASA targets next Artemis I launch attempt, but a lot has to go right | collectSPACE
Gnome de PPRuNe
Joined: Jan 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 15,199
Likes: 1,201
From: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Looks to be launching in about 20 mins, 0540 GMT. Barring another hold...
Edit: Planned 30 min plus hold at T-10 mins... looks like about an hour hold.
(Just been looking at ADSB, 2 NASA helicopters about, plus a WB-57 and a Gulfstream 5 to the west of KSC)
Edit: Planned 30 min plus hold at T-10 mins... looks like about an hour hold.
(Just been looking at ADSB, 2 NASA helicopters about, plus a WB-57 and a Gulfstream 5 to the west of KSC)
Last edited by treadigraph; 16th November 2022 at 04:40.
Gnome de PPRuNe
Joined: Jan 2002
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 15,199
Likes: 1,201
From: Too close to Croydon for comfort
Launched successfully and all seems to be going well so far. Artemis hopefully heading to the moon and I suppose I'd better go to Tesco. How mundane...
Thread Starter
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Joined: Jul 2000
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 24,662
Likes: 7,348
From: Peripatetic
All seemed so very retro.
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,156
Likes: 113
From: There and here
I was hoping to maybe see Artemis orbiting the Earth, or even the rocket igniting for it's burn before it got light in Europe, but sadly ALL the live feeds are either still, or showing the launch of a while ago. Anyone care to guess why the live-feeds aren't working ? Does anyone know what the panned timetable is ?
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 244
Likes: 16
From: -
All seemed so very retro.
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/te...on/7571432001/
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 262
From: Blighty
All seemed so very retro.
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 180
Likes: 34
From: Texas
All seemed so very retro.
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
Totally throw away boosters, totally throw away booster - including the 4 Shuttle main engines at $500M each. Only a few seconds of onboard video before cutting back to a ground camera trying to keep a small dot in the middle if the screen.
All building up to an eventual launch where SpaceX launch a couple of totally reusable boosters and Starships to refuel in orbit before taking their lunar lander to the moon to RV with Artemis to shuttle the crew to the surface, bring them back up, then refuel the lander for the next landing before recovering the Starship back to earth to be used again.
Sort of like a historic re-enactment where you have a copy of Columbus ship being filmed by a modern support ship as it leaves harbour and shuttling the crew about using their tender when they need to get go ashore…
I know if we're going back to the moon "to stay", we need a more robust system than the one-time Apollo style lander. This combination of SLS/Orion and Starship and landers and gateways just seems to be a cobbled-together mess. Perhaps it's the cynic in me, but it seems to be designed primarily to ensure there's a piece of the pie for all the usual suspects.
Joined: Feb 2002
Aviation Qualifications: AME
Posts: 4,182
Likes: 1,116
From: UK