After over 2 decades in shop SLS fails first test

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

 

I'm pretty sure they also planned a proper space shuttle that doesn't need extra rockets to get out of orbit... they should make that, it's the only thing that makes sense imo...

typically those are called SSTO (single stage to orbit). really hard to do on earth without going very large

[Mark Kaine]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

typically those are called SSTO (single stage to orbit). really hard to do on earth without going very large

why does it need to be large, for the fuel or? 

 

I mean I'm not entirely sure about that but I think jets can really get into low orbit or at least close to, rather effortlessly... they just can't go further because they aren't built for it... they'd lose control for one because the whole thing how planes work doesn't work in space. 

 

[GDRRiley]

5 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

why does it need to be large, for the fuel or? 

 

I mean I'm not entirely sure about that but I think jets can really get into low orbit or at least close to, rather effortlessly... they just can't go further because they aren't built for it... they'd lose control for one because the whole thing how planes work doesn't work in space. 

 

the mix of fuel capacity to body weight and a few other factors

We can get rocket planes pass 100km the karmen line, some(air force) calls that space but to orbital speeds no. X-15
the highest public know aircraft air breathing aircraft is the SR-71 at just under 30km up

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

the mix of fuel capacity to body weight and a few other factors

We can get rocket planes pass 100km the karmen line, some(air force) calls that space but to orbital speeds no. X-15
the highest public know aircraft air breathing aircraft is the SR-71 at just under 30km up

oh yeah, I get it now I think... you'd need some kind of booster (like a rocket!) to actually leave the atmosphere, since normal engines won't work for that... 

 

 

 

 

[Kilrah]

31 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

why does it need to be large, for the fuel or? 

Need lots of fuel -> need large heavy tanks, and every kg of mass takes energy to bring up. Whole point of multi staged rockets is to separate the whole rocket in multiple parts you can gradually get rid of to reduce the mass that needs to get to the destination, no point carrying dead weight that serves no purpose anymore.

[CarlBar]

Air breathing planes get nowhere near space altitudes or speeds. A jumbo jet flys at around 40,000 ft and at a velocity of 0.8 times the speed of sound, (often shortened to "0.8 Mach"). The SR-71 reached a little over 100,000 ft at around 4.0 Mach. The ISS sits at 1,360,000 ft and travels a bit over 21 Mach. And due to heating issues with the atmosphere getting much over mach 6 in atmosphere, (for now at least, designs are on the board that could go to mach 10), is hard so all that extra velocity has to e added with a combination of fuel and liquid oxidiser.

 

That doesn't mean having an air-breathing first stage carry your rocket up a ways is an insane idea. getting that first 40,000+ ft out of the way saves a lot of mass and volume. In fact Virgin just completed a successful launch of a small satellite launch system that does exactly this.

 

@GDRRiley & @Mark Kaine The reason they shut down the shuttle was twofold.

 

1. The shuttle couldn't lift payloads big enough for anything beyond basic satellite launches.

 

2. It need a bunch of internal computer system updates, (your smartphone is more capable than everything on the entire shuttle), and it was far more costly to run than had been intended in the development phase, (The tiles where far more fragile than expected).

 

The shuttle was the wrong platform for what NASA wanted to do and it was in need of expensive upgrades. Retiring it freed up money NASA could throw at something actually useful for what they wanted to do.

[Donut417]

7 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

As tragic as this incident was, with all due respect, that doesnt really make too much sense, I think they maybe already had plans to cut things down perhaps ... they were talking about going to moon, and Mars, but actually they didn't do much, just space shuttle starts because it looked cool on TV - it really did! 

NASA found a issue with the protective material used to protect the space shuttle during reentry. As in it falls off during launch. Thats what took out the Columbia. So it was seen as "unsafe". While they might have been able to fix the problem, the space shuttle design dates back to the late 1970's I think. So it was probably due for upgrade or replacement. Because outside those circumstances I dont see the US relying on the Russians for manned missions otherwise. As NASA no longer has its own spacecraft it has to use Russia or companies like SpaceX to get stuff to orbit. 

 

To be honest I think companies like SpaceX are the future of space travel. NASA will never be able to do it due to budgetary constraints. 

 

[StDragon]

1 hour ago, Donut417 said:

NASA found a issue with the protective material used to protect the space shuttle during reentry. As in it falls off during launch. Thats what took out the Columbia. So it was seen as "unsafe". While they might have been able to fix the problem, the space shuttle design dates back to the late 1970's I think. So it was probably due for upgrade or replacement.

Regarding Columbia, it was foam shedding that damaged the wing during lift-off. The hole it left behind was substantial enough burn up the wing upon reentry. "Foam shedding" was a common issue but rarely was it a cause for concern (...until it was).

 

The successor to the shuttle program is the X-37 which basically is the drone equivalent performing all sorts of classified missions as of 2010. It's now officially managed by the USSF.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

That doesn't mean having an air-breathing first stage carry your rocket up a ways is an insane idea. getting that first 40,000+ ft out of the way saves a lot of mass and volume. In fact Virgin just completed a successful launch of a small satellite launch system that does exactly this

yeah that was the idea back then I think... like this 3 rocket phases thing works... but isn't really most efficient, or safe...

 

it was relatively safe because they put massive effort into it but by design, god knows how powerful "self dissolving" rockets isn't exactly a safe ride! 

 

(well imo at least!) 

[CarlBar]

NASA has completed analysis and tracked down the issue. There's was a low fluid and low pressure warning on one of the four, (for redundancy, only one needs to be working properly), Hydraulics systems. The test shutdown parameters where set deliberately conservative on the shutdown and in a real launch the rocket would have continued on and been fine.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-55727686

[StDragon]

7 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

NASA has completed analysis and tracked down the issue. There's was a low fluid and low pressure warning on one of the four, (for redundancy, only one needs to be working properly), Hydraulics systems.

 

Wasn't there a similar hydraulic issue that caused one or two of the three Raptor engines to fail in the Dec 9th SpaceX Starship test? At least from the video, that's what it looked like anyways. 

[CarlBar]

4 minutes ago, StDragon said:

 

Wasn't there a similar hydraulic issue that caused one or two of the three Raptor engines to fail in the Dec 9th SpaceX Starship test? At least from the video, that's what it looked like anyways. 

 

Not sure, but wouldn't suprise me. Hydraulics, Fuel/Oxidiser Pumps, Software Glitches, and Vibration issues are some of the most common failure modes for rockets on this scale. Not that it's surprising in the former two cases, said systems are often obscenely high performance in a super miniaturised form. And software bugs have been plaguing us since the first functional computers where built.

[tim0901]

3 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

@GDRRiley & @Mark Kaine The reason they shut down the shuttle was twofold.

 

1. The shuttle couldn't lift payloads big enough for anything beyond basic satellite launches.

 

2. It need a bunch of internal computer system updates, (your smartphone is more capable than everything on the entire shuttle), and it was far more costly to run than had been intended in the development phase, (The tiles where far more fragile than expected).

 

The shuttle was the wrong platform for what NASA wanted to do and it was in need of expensive upgrades. Retiring it freed up money NASA could throw at something actually useful for what they wanted to do.

Also:

• Challenger
• Columbia
• It was unreliable, so much that it became notorious for its launch delays, which also made it ill-suited for launches with narrow launch windows.
• It was incredibly dangerous to use for manned flight as it had no launch escape system. See: Challenger.
• A lot of the original goals for the craft were abandoned after the Challenger disaster. For example, it was originally intended to carry upper-stages to orbit, to be used by interplanetary space probes, but that was abandoned for safety reasons.
• It was a one-size-fits-nobody solution. Sure it could launch crewless payloads, but so could an Atlas V. Or a Delta IV. For a fraction of the price. Same with crewed launches to the ISS - a capsule could do it better (albeit a Russian one). There were very few missions where the shuttle was the ideal craft for the job, especially after Challenger.
• It was supposed to have a turnaround time of weeks, not the 2-3 months that it usually took.

It was an expensive, dangerous craft with no well-defined purpose. That it needed some expensive updates was merely the nail in the coffin.

[dalekphalm]

On 1/17/2021 at 3:08 AM, GDRRiley said:

Summary

NASA SLS after 50 seconds and engine failed and at 67s the test ended. The test was suppose to last 8 minutes. This is all based on flight proven hardware from the RS-25 Space Shuttle main engines to extended SRBs. the only new part was a larger fuel tank. however after almost 20 years NASA and Boeing have still not had a rocket launch.

 

Quotes

 

My thoughts

Given this is a space shuttle main engine RS-25 that has already flown and has been rebuilt, this should have been the most tested part. Aerojet Rocketdyne was paid a lot to refurbish engines and restart the production line., It looks like bring back the F1 from the Saturn V would have been a better move. I'd like to see this waste of money die

 

Sources

https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/nasas-space-launch-system-rocket-shuts-down-after-just-67-seconds/
 

UPDATE
15 of the 23 test had enough data
The test was shutdown by a hydraulic pressure reading breaking limits. The test limits were tighter than flight limits to keep the test stand safe
The MCF was a redundant sensor failing

The flash was "normal" with no damage
NASA is leaning towards another test in 3-5 weeks time (if they stay on track)

Sources
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/01/nasa-likely-to-redo-hot-fire-test-of-its-space-launch-system-core-stage/

 

People like to bring up the Saturn V as a real viable alternative, but the reality is it's not.

 

The problem is that much of the engineering diagrams were lost, and there are not complete blueprints.

 

On top of that, little if any of the manufacturing processes would still exist, meaning that they would need to recreate all the tooling and dies and manufacturing lines, often with little documentation or direct knowledge of the process.

 

A realistic alternative is likely going to be the SpaceX Super Heavy Booster (The 1st stage of Starship), as well as Blue Origin's super rocket (which I'm not sure if they've even started manufacturing/testing yet).

 

SLS is a fairly typical government money pit. I mostly put the blame on Boeing, with some blame on NASA for not pushing Boeing sufficiently to deliver results.

 

Also, part of the problem with the SLS is that the contract includes cost overruns, so if the project runs over budget, NASA pays for it, not Boeing.

[GDRRiley]

12 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

People like to bring up the Saturn V as a real viable alternative, but the reality is it's not.

 

The problem is that much of the engineering diagrams were lost, and there are not complete blueprints.

 

SLS is a fairly typical government money pit. I mostly put the blame on Boeing, with some blame on NASA for not pushing Boeing sufficiently to deliver results.

 

Also, part of the problem with the SLS is that the contract includes cost overruns, so if the project runs over budget, NASA pays for it, not Boeing.

I didn't say bring back the Saturn V. I said bring back the F1 from that project
I've stated before Rocketdyne works to keep the knowledge of the F1 alive. They almost brought it back to replace the SRBs so there is the start of an updated F1b

Yeah, but I'd also put quite a lot on the Senate it is their pet project.

[StDragon]

19 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

People like to bring up the Saturn V as a real viable alternative, but the reality is it's not.

 

The problem is that much of the engineering diagrams were lost, and there are not complete blueprints.

 

On top of that, little if any of the manufacturing processes would still exist, meaning that they would need to recreate all the tooling and dies and manufacturing lines, often with little documentation or direct knowledge of the process.

That's been debunked multiple times. Paul Shillito (Curious Droid) dedicated a whole YT video on it titled - Why Can't we Remake the Rocketdyne F1 engine?

 

Basically, it's not that we can't remake the F-1 engine, because we can; there are plans for an F-1B engine which is superior in every way due to leveraging modern manufacturing capabilities to construct one with fewer parts. The knowledge that's lost is manufacturing the original F-1 engine as it was in the 1960's using 1960's industrial technology. So unless you're looking at re-creating a historically accurate original for the sake of a museum piece, this argument is entirely moot! 

[GDRRiley]

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

1. The shuttle couldn't lift payloads big enough for anything beyond basic satellite launches.

 

2. It need a bunch of internal computer system updates, (your smartphone is more capable than everything on the entire shuttle), and it was far more costly to run than had been intended in the development phase, (The tiles where far more fragile than expected).

 

The shuttle was the wrong platform for what NASA wanted to do and it was in need of expensive upgrades. Retiring it freed up money NASA could throw at something actually useful for what they wanted to do.

it was built to handle decent size satellite launches and recovery. Hell most of its issues stem from being forced to meet a bunch of military payload size requirements
the biggest issues was they stop flying with SRBs in the cargo bay so they couldn't have a good kicker for a probe

 

You'd be surprised computer replacement was probably last on the list. the ISS is doing just fine on P1 and mars rovers are doing great on like powerPC G3
Thats one of the bigger ones, it was far too costly and slow to launch

It wasn't the wrong platform it still has its uses the issues is it became a bad swiss army knife over doing a few things good.
they didn't get to pick that was congress, nasa dind't really want the SLS/constellation project

[CarlBar]

3 hours ago, tim0901 said:

Also:

• Challenger
• Columbia
• It was unreliable, so much that it became notorious for its launch delays, which also made it ill-suited for launches with narrow launch windows.
• It was incredibly dangerous to use for manned flight as it had no launch escape system. See: Challenger.
• A lot of the original goals for the craft were abandoned after the Challenger disaster. For example, it was originally intended to carry upper-stages to orbit, to be used by interplanetary space probes, but that was abandoned for safety reasons.
• It was a one-size-fits-nobody solution. Sure it could launch crewless payloads, but so could an Atlas V. Or a Delta IV. For a fraction of the price. Same with crewed launches to the ISS - a capsule could do it better (albeit a Russian one). There were very few missions where the shuttle was the ideal craft for the job, especially after Challenger.
• It was supposed to have a turnaround time of weeks, not the 2-3 months that it usually took.

It was an expensive, dangerous craft with no well-defined purpose. That it needed some expensive updates was merely the nail in the coffin.

 

No that it needed some expensive upgrades was the coffin. All of the points you raised come down to one of three things. Outdated internal components, (notably the computer,s but far from the only one), A tile system that never lived upto it's design goals, and a bunch of compromises to meet USAF needs in the design of the orbiter, (the Shuttle had an escape system designed in originally, 2 technically), that limited it capabilities and created all kinds of issues.

 

The issues could have been fixed by gutting the orbiters systems and tiles and replacing them with newer replacements, swapping the SRB's for a liquid reusable booster and performing a few other upgrades. But it would have been a lot of money for something that could still only lift 30 tons, you can develop an entirely new replacement thats more capable and has the same capabilities for that much.

 

2 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

it was built to handle decent size satellite launches and recovery. Hell most of its issues stem from being forced to meet a bunch of military payload size requirements
the biggest issues was they stop flying with SRBs in the cargo bay so they couldn't have a good kicker for a probe

 

You'd be surprised computer replacement was probably last on the list. the ISS is doing just fine on P1 and mars rovers are doing great on like powerPC G3
Thats one of the bigger ones, it was far too costly and slow to launch

It wasn't the wrong platform it still has its uses the issues is it became a bad swiss army knife over doing a few things good.
they didn't get to pick that was congress, nasa dind't really want the SLS/constellation project

 

It was less processing power with computers and that no one manufactured spares, they where cannibalising parts of the display orbiter to keep the others running. Also being able to lift 30 tons is a much bigger issue than it sounds. The issue with the cargo is that once you get above a certain size lifting in 30 ton lots becomes a lot more expensive launch costs wise than one or two big lots. If NASA wants to go to the moon or mars they need somthing like the SLS to make it even vaguely possibble. Based on what they've revealed so far they're still cutting dangerous amounts of corners.

 

Also you got any sources on that claim about what NASA wanted? Like i aid NASA's been studying this, (alongside space enthusiasts of various kinds), since before the shuttle flew. This isn't something dreamed up by a congressman, it came straight from NASA themselves.

[tim0901]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

No that it needed some expensive upgrades was the coffin. All of the points you raised come down to one of three things. Outdated internal components, (notably the computer,s but far from the only one), A tile system that never lived upto it's design goals, and a bunch of compromises to meet USAF needs in the design of the orbiter, (the Shuttle had an escape system designed in originally, 2 technically), that limited it capabilities and created all kinds of issues.

Sure it used to have one, but the escape system (a fucking ejector seat from the SR71) was both outdated and ineffective. It was removed because everyone agreed it would never actually save a life if it were used - ejector seats don't exactly work well when you're flung directly into the hot exhaust of an SRB. They should have - from the start - designed the entire cockpit to be ejected in case of emergency. This suggestion was raised post-Challenger, but not pursued because money.

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

It was less processing power with computers and that no one manufactured spares, they where cannibalising parts of the display orbiter to keep the others running.

The US Air Force still uses the exact same computer - the IBM AP-101 - to this day. The B-52 and B-1 bombers both still use it, as did the F-15 for a long time, so I highly doubt that NASA were as desperate for parts as you claim. IBM happily still produce parts for the Air Force, so I'm sure they would still be able to build them for NASA as well should they have wished.

 

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Also you got any sources on that claim about what NASA wanted? Like i aid NASA's been studying this, (alongside space enthusiasts of various kinds), since before the shuttle flew. This isn't something dreamed up by a congressman, it came straight from NASA themselves.

By the time the SLS was being forced on them, NASA had already started looking down the path that would eventually lead to the Commercial Crew Program. NASA themselves yes had been looking at these shuttle derivatives for years, but not by choice since the 90s. The NLS that they investigated back then had long since been dropped in favor of the SSTO (X-33), Space Shuttle and Space Station Freedom projects.

 

The Constellation program (2004) was brought upon NASA as a result of the Bush Administration's "Vision for Space Exploration", which mandated that NASA retire the shuttle by 2010 and develop a replacement. The SLS program was a requirement of the NASA Authorization Act (2010), which was introduced after Constellation was cancelled (due to it being massively over budget and behind schedule), as an answer to two questions:

 

1) Wtf do we (NASA) do with this capsule we've mostly developed (Orion).

 

But more importantly:

 

2) How do we (US Govt) appease all these US companies whose contracts are in limbo now that we've terminated the Constellation program.

Because that's all this launcher is. It's all it's ever been about: keeping the likes of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman happy now that their contracts are about to end. This was even written expllicitly into the 2010 Authorization Act (emphasis mine):

Quote

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.— In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph (1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.

 

It was the whole reason for the "Vision for Space Exploration" as well - to keep Space Shuttle money going to the companies that it was going to (while also putting up a face of "we're doing something" in the wake of Columbia). Even as far back as the National Launch System in the 90s, the only reason NASA ever got funding to look into a replacement of this form is because it would be continuing existing contracts with American companies. which was (and very much still is) politically favorable.

 

NASA never wanted Orion, nor did they want Ares V or SLS. They were forced upon them by congress as a way of keeping big companies happy.

 

Apologies for the essay.

[CarlBar]

59 minutes ago, tim0901 said:

Sure it used to have one, but the escape system (a fucking ejector seat from the SR71) was both outdated and ineffective. It was removed because everyone agreed it would never actually save a life if it were used - ejector seats don't exactly work well when you're flung directly into the hot exhaust of an SRB. They should have - from the start - designed the entire cockpit to be ejected in case of emergency. This suggestion was raised post-Challenger, but not pursued because money.

 

That was the escape system it was originally supposed to have, but they had to pull it when the air force demanded more changes, (not helped by the jump to solid boosters, the original liquid booster would have let the orbiter be heavier from what i recall).

 

1 hour ago, tim0901 said:

The US Air Force still uses the exact same computer - the IBM AP-101 - to this day. The B-52 and B-1 bombers both still use it, as did the F-15 for a long time, so I highly doubt that NASA were as desperate for parts as you claim. IBM happily still produce parts for the Air Force, so I'm sure they would still be able to build them for NASA as well should they have wished.

 

I'm paraphrasing comments made by NASA  at the time of retirement i trust them to know their own parts situation. I've no idea specifically what differs but if i had to guess i'd assume NASA had to have custom modifications done to them for space-worthiness. Most electronics going into space have to be modified if their mission critical.

 

As for the rest. thats the administration saying we want you to do this. That isn't NASA saying they don't want to do this. Given NASA has in the past generally had a large amount of say in what is specified in their budgetary approval if NASA wanted somthing other than the SLS to do the job they could have and would have proposed that. if you want to provuide sources on NASA not wanting the SLS your goign to have to provide sources of NASA actually saying that. Not sources saying So-And-So  says do this. because normally those do this are a resualt of NASA asking for those things and them then being specified in the paperwork so that whats funding is for what can be clearly tracked.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, tim0901 said:

The US Air Force still uses the exact same computer - the IBM AP-101 - to this day. The B-52 and B-1 bombers both still use it, as did the F-15 for a long time, so I highly doubt that NASA were as desperate for parts as you claim. IBM happily still produce parts for the Air Force, so I'm sure they would still be able to build them for NASA as well should they have wished.

 

Further update, gone digging. Seems that NASA added a semi-conductor upgrade pack to the shuttle computers in the late 90's, i can't find any mention of the USAF or anyone else using these. That might explain the weirdness of spare parts being an issue.

[tim0901]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

Further update, gone digging. Seems that NASA added a semi-conductor upgrade pack to the shuttle computers in the late 90's, i can't find any mention of the USAF or anyone else using these. That might explain the weirdness of spare parts being an issue.

Very possibly. Still dont see a reason why IBM would happily supply the Air Force with spare parts but not NASA, but who knows. 

 

Quote

if you want to provuide sources on NASA not wanting the SLS your goign to have to provide sources of NASA actually saying that. Not sources saying So-And-So  says do this. because normally those do this are a resualt of NASA asking for those things and them then being specified in the paperwork so that whats funding is for what can be clearly tracked.

 

I doubt I'll be able to say anything that will be proof enough for you - that blunt "we don't want this" talk just doesn't get into the public domain. You have to come to these conclusions from interpreting the tidbits of information that do slip out. But as you said:

Quote

Given NASA has in the past generally had a large amount of say in what is specified in their budgetary approval if NASA wanted somthing other than the SLS to do the job they could have and would have proposed that.

And would you gosh darn believe it?

 

They did.

 

This is the FY 2011 NASA budgetary request - for the fiscal year that started a week before the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (the one that requested SLS be built). If NASA wanted SLS, they would have put a budgetary request for it in this document.

 

But there is no mention of SLS in it, because they didn't want it. In fact, NASA requested the complete opposite: they wanted money to be used to prematurely cancel the contracts that were put in place for the Constellation program (under the header 'Constellation Transition').

 

Instead of asking for SLS, they wanted to use the money originally intended for the Constellation program to be put into their Commercial Spaceflight, ISS and Exploration R&D budgets. They wanted to restart the synthesis of plutonium for use by interplanetary probes. They wanted EJSM, New Frontiers 3 (OSIRIS-REX), the Explorers Program (TESS). They even asked for money to develop a "first-stage hydrocarbon engine for potential use in future heavy lift launch systems" - ie NOT use the same old RS-25 on a potential future rocket. They absolutely did not ask for a shuttle derivative.

 

The first mention of SLS is not until the FY 2012 budgetary request, because that was after congress had decided that SLS was what they should do instead. SLS exists not because of NASA, but because of politics.

 

 

You can see the same sort of political interference by comparing the FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets as well. In FY 2004, NASA was funding the "Space Launch Initiative", otherwise known as the 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. This was their research for a 2nd gen "space plane" - something akin to the X-38 - research on which was listed to continue well into the future, with the craft to enter active service by the early 2010s.

 

But by 2005, that's all changed. There's no mention of the Space Launch Initiative, because they can't afford it. The project has been scrapped to make way for the Constellation program.

 

You can get a sense for NASA's opinion on the matter in the opening sentence of the FY 2005 budget request:

Quote

On January 14, 2004, President Bush established a new vision for U.S. space exploration

That's the closest you'll ever get to NASA putting their hands up and outright saying "we didn't ask for this". The fact that they then repeatedly refer to Bush's plans as The President's Vision for Space Exploration, despite the official name for the document being The Vision for Space Exploration only goes further to emphasise this point.

 

If you've ever wanted an example of why NASA seems to get nothing done, this is one right here. They do great stuff, but they have to live with the fact that every 4-8 years a new administration comes along and completely shakes up their direction, because they seem to think they know better than NASA. Trump was no different with the Artemis program and reduction in Earth science research. And strangely enough, I'm not holding my breath that Biden will be any different.

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

s for the rest. thats the administration saying we want you to do this. That isn't NASA saying they don't want to do this. Given NASA has in the past generally had a large amount of say in what is specified in their budgetary approval if NASA wanted somthing other than the SLS to do the job they could have and would have proposed that. if you want to provuide sources on NASA not wanting the SLS your goign to have to provide sources of NASA actually saying that. Not sources saying So-And-So  says do this. because normally those do this are a resualt of NASA asking for those things and them then being specified in the paperwork so that whats funding is for what can be clearly tracked.

NASA has almost 0 input on what they do its all congress.

Congress created the SLS and Constilation programs and forced them to use existing parts and suppliers

[CarlBar]

5 hours ago, tim0901 said:

Very possibly. Still dont see a reason why IBM would happily supply the Air Force with spare parts but not NASA, but who knows. 

 

I doubt I'll be able to say anything that will be proof enough for you - that blunt "we don't want this" talk just doesn't get into the public domain. You have to come to these conclusions from interpreting the tidbits of information that do slip out. But as you said:

And would you gosh darn believe it?

 

They did.

 

This is the FY 2011 NASA budgetary request - for the fiscal year that started a week before the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (the one that requested SLS be built). If NASA wanted SLS, they would have put a budgetary request for it in this document.

 

But there is no mention of SLS in it, because they didn't want it. In fact, NASA requested the complete opposite: they wanted money to be used to prematurely cancel the contracts that were put in place for the Constellation program (under the header 'Constellation Transition').

 

Instead of asking for SLS, they wanted to use the money originally intended for the Constellation program to be put into their Commercial Spaceflight, ISS and Exploration R&D budgets. They wanted to restart the synthesis of plutonium for use by interplanetary probes. They wanted EJSM, New Frontiers 3 (OSIRIS-REX), the Explorers Program (TESS). They even asked for money to develop a "first-stage hydrocarbon engine for potential use in future heavy lift launch systems" - ie NOT use the same old RS-25 on a potential future rocket. They absolutely did not ask for a shuttle derivative.

 

The first mention of SLS is not until the FY 2012 budgetary request, because that was after congress had decided that SLS was what they should do instead. SLS exists not because of NASA, but because of politics.

 

 

You can see the same sort of political interference by comparing the FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets as well. In FY 2004, NASA was funding the "Space Launch Initiative", otherwise known as the 2nd Generation Reusable Launch Vehicle Program. This was their research for a 2nd gen "space plane" - something akin to the X-38 - research on which was listed to continue well into the future, with the craft to enter active service by the early 2010s.

 

But by 2005, that's all changed. There's no mention of the Space Launch Initiative, because they can't afford it. The project has been scrapped to make way for the Constellation program.

 

You can get a sense for NASA's opinion on the matter in the opening sentence of the FY 2005 budget request:

That's the closest you'll ever get to NASA putting their hands up and outright saying "we didn't ask for this". The fact that they then repeatedly refer to Bush's plans as The President's Vision for Space Exploration, despite the official name for the document being The Vision for Space Exploration only goes further to emphasise this point.

 

If you've ever wanted an example of why NASA seems to get nothing done, this is one right here. They do great stuff, but they have to live with the fact that every 4-8 years a new administration comes along and completely shakes up their direction, because they seem to think they know better than NASA. Trump was no different with the Artemis program and reduction in Earth science research. And strangely enough, I'm not holding my breath that Biden will be any different.

 

First that budgetary report is actually pretty close to what i asked for, (note we have, "this is not what we wanted to do" on large parts of the shuttle program from as far back as before enterprise started flight tests, so no it's not impossible you'd get such a statement). That said i have one major question as i haven't had the opportunity yet, (and it's going to be a slog to go through and you seem familiar with it), what was NASA's plan for actually building and launching their spacecraft for lunar and mars missions. You mention a Hydrocarbon First Stage design, (note this would not be a replacement for the RS-25, First stage means F-1 equivalent, so an SRB replacement in the SLS system, which NASA allready has on the drawing board and has been wanting to do since the early days of the shuttle program, (The ISS in various forms slightly pre-dates the shuttle btw)), and NASA never intended the Crew Launch programme to handle heavy cargo or large spacecraft, it was just a taxi for astronauts and light cargo to orbit, so them wanting a new first stage fits with them planning out a new heavy lift vehicle. Don't let it's ability to lift Orion fool you, it's a cargo rocket first and foremost.

 

As far as inferring goes. Thats a dangerous game to play. The X-33 depending on how you read it, was either killed by political desires, killed by NASA intentionally in a roundabout way, or killed by a single NASA manager by accident. 

 

As another example, using what i read when i skimmed the introduction of the document you linked with what actually happened i could infer that NASA didn't originally want to go to the moon again quite so soon and so asked for the budget to develop a new booster for whatever heavy lift vehicle they went for eventually so they could have a mature large capacity platform to do so with. But the politicians set a moon return date too soon for that so they had to come up with a scalable design that could have the new booster added on afterwards. Thats the danger of inferring, you can interpret things several different ways. It's also why i'm trying not to do it myself and asking for harder evidence.

 

@GDRRiley Politicians have zero say in the designs. They literally don't have the necessary knowledge. They can set political goals that then require NASA to develop hardware to meet on a specific time-schedule, just as they did with the Apollo programme. But it's upto NASA to put forward the plans on how those are going to be met. Thats exactly what happened with the Shuttle program. The Politicians vetoed more moon or a future Mars mission and gave NASA a very limited budget to develop their new launch platform on. NASA, it's contractors, and the Air Force then collaborated to put together that project's design before going back to the politicians with it. Going for the Shuttle and it's broad capabilities was a Political decision, but it's final form was not, (though budgetary constraints imposed at the political level still constrained it).

[GDRRiley]

39 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

 Politicians have zero say in the designs. They literally don't have the necessary knowledge. They can set political goals that then require NASA to develop hardware to meet on a specific time-schedule, just as they did with the Apollo programme. But it's upto NASA to put forward the plans on how those are going to be met. Thats exactly what happened with the Shuttle program. The Politicians vetoed more moon or a future Mars mission and gave NASA a very limited budget to develop their new launch platform on. NASA, it's contractors, and the Air Force then collaborated to put together that project's design before going back to the politicians with it. Going for the Shuttle and it's broad capabilities was a Political decision, but it's final form was not, (though budgetary constraints imposed at the political level still constrained it)

they have quite a lot of say in the design the SLS and Constellation are built to their requirements not NASAs. Constellation design was laid out by Bush not by NASA

Constellation was suppose to use 6 RS-68 but congress pushed the use of RS-25 from the space shuttle
the amount of pork congress has pushed for. The SLS a single main engines cost more than a Falcon Heavy launcher in full expendable which can do 2/3 of the cargo
Boeing has openly worked to shape the contracts