SLS schedule changes impending


Readers!
 
For many reasons, mostly political but partly ethical, I do not use Google, Facebook, Twitter. They practice corrupt business policies, while targeting conservative websites for censoring, facts repeatedly confirmed by news stories and by my sense that Facebook has taken action to prevent my readers from recommending Behind the Black to their friends.
 
Thus, I must have your direct support to keep this webpage alive. Not only does the money pay the bills, it gives me the freedom to speak honestly about science and culture, instead of being forced to write it as others demand.

 

Please consider donating by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below.


 

Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.

NASA’s refurbishment plans for the mobile launcher and SLS launchpad suggest that the first manned flight of SLS is increasingly likely to be delayed from its present 2021 launch date.

The situation is complicated. The SLS configuration that will launch an unmanned capsule in December 2018 will use a Delta rocket upper stage, and will only have the capability of launching about 70 metric tons into low Earth orbit. After this one flight NASA wants to begin using SLS’s own upper stage, which it calls the Exploration Upper Stage and which will raise the rocket’s payload capacity to 105 metric tons. Because these changes will make SLS taller, however, they have to refurbish both the mobile launcher that brings the rocket to the launchpad as well as the launch tower used to fuel the rocket during countdown. These changes, now scheduled, will shut down the launchpad from January 2019 until the end of 2020.

The problem with doing this is that SLS’s second flight, presently scheduled in 2021, is supposed to be manned. To use the Exploration Upper Stage untested on this manned flight is something NASA doesn’t really want to do. Flying another unmanned flight to test that upper stage however will require NASA to delay the first manned flight again, probably to 2023.

Based on the article at the link above, those delays now seem almost certain. Because NASA is moving to refurbish the launchpad right after that first unmanned flight in December 2018, this means all later SLS launches will use the Exploration Upper Stage. Since Congress has also ordered NASA to fly its upcoming Europa orbiter mission on SLS, it seems to me that NASA is now quietly moving to add a second unmanned SLS test flight between the rocket’s first flight in 2018 and the first manned flight and will use it to launch the Europa orbiter some time in 2021. This will in turn delay the launch of that first manned flight, probably until 2023, a date that is presently listed in many NASA documents as the latest SLS’s first manned mission will fly.

If this is the case, it means that it will have literally taken NASA two decades to build and fly a single manned Orion capsule, beginning when George Bush ordered the construction of the Crew Exploration Vehicle in January 2004.

Does no one but me see something wrong here?

Share

5 comments

  • LocalFluff

    The Russians got it right in the 1980s and 90s. They could launch Energia (=SLS) with or without shuttle. And the shuttle with or without crew. And also launch the boosters as individual rockets (Zenith). NASA failed on several design points. And now they are stuck with the same suppliers. 40 years later NASA is still paying a very high price for giving in to corruption and bad ideas back then.

  • Tom Billings

    “NASA failed on several design points. And now they are stuck with the same suppliers. ”

    In fact, the funding law for NASA, for 2010, which specified that Shuttle components were to be used, to keep the same NASA Centers and Contractors busy, ended up doing much the same thing as at the start of the Shuttle program. It was allocating money on a political basis based on previous contracts stemming back to Apollo.

    NASA HQ had very little leeway to make things better after their October 1969 insult to the Nixon WH. Before that the funding for Centers was laid out in Lyndon Johnson’s original designs for NASA to be a core for industrializing the South, before 1962 . Johnson’s staffers had written the first draft of NASA’s charter in 1958, when he was Majority Leader in the Senate. The combination of Johnson’s usage of NASA money and the Kennedy decision to race to the Moon have set much of NASA’s funding course ever since.

  • This doesn’t take into account any details that could still happen to the first launch in December 2018, plus we still don’t know what will happen after the elections in November any changes in the balance could result in changes to the plans anyway.

  • Kirk

    Tom, you wrote “NASA HQ … after their October 1969 insult to the Nixon WH.” Can you expand on that or point me somewhere I can read about the October 1969 event you are referring to?

  • wodun

    This whole thing is depressing. There isn’t any reason inorbit assembly can’t be used. For the same amount of money as spent on SLS/Orion you could fund sooooo many f9 launches and payloads to go on them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *