Slashdot Mirror
Report: NASA May Miss SLS Launch Deadline
An anonymous reader writes: A post at the Planetary Society's blog summarizes a report from NASA's Office of Inspector General which says the agency will struggle to get launch facilities up and running in time for the Space Launch System's November 2018 launch deadline. "Ground systems are a critical piece of the SLS-Orion infrastructure. All three elements are tightly integrated, with ground systems requiring significant input from the rocket and capsule designs." To be more specific, NASA has found 462 separate inter-dependencies, less than two-thirds of which have been resolved so far. "The Mobile Launcher must be moved into the Vehicle Assembly Building for testing prior to the delivery of SLS and Orion. When it comes time to stack the rocket and capsule for the first flight, there may be a 'learning curve,' said the OIG, where engineers work through unforeseen glitches." They're also worried about having to develop all the software to run these systems before the hardware is in place to test.
But it would be news if they made the launch date
Outsource the whole operation to SpaceX or Boeing and then have them be responsible for hitting the deadline.
It won't cost more then what it currently costs, the US will retain the internal capability to do the work... and we'll be able to put real pressure on the whole institution to actually hit deadlines.
They want to get paid? Deliver on the contract.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I suppose that is why the government spending and revenue as a percentage of GDP increased by an average of about 2.5% of GDP per decade for the past seven decades. If you want to make a cancer analogy....
we should cut the budget
.5% of the budget.
that has nothing to do with nasa, who brings in some
We can still cut the budget in other areas that are rife with abuse, and not touch (or give more to) nasa
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You must find and itemize any and all unforeseen problems that could crop up, complete with solutions and procedure to minimize their impact.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
It's not the size of NASA's budget, (Bolden keeps saying they have all the money they need for SLS), it's the unholy mess of earmarks that ties NASA's hands at just about every step. These days NASA can't take a shit without some congressional earmark telling them what brand of toilet paper to use. NASA is no longer about space, it's about launching money into key congressional districts
And on that score, the Senate Launch System has apparently been performing as designed.
One man's abuse is another man's necessity.
Deciding who is right is the problem.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Musk has a pretty terrible reputation for sticking to deadlines himself. He'd get enormously more done with the same amount of money, sure, but don't expect it on time.
Maybe they could do something crazy like making a general puopse launch center that can handle SLS, Space-X, others, now and into the future instead of starting from scratch on each new program.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Potemkin rocket launch delayed!
NASA has found 462 separate inter-dependencies, less than two-thirds of which have been resolved so far.
sounds like someone deleted systemd from their software repo. ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
It was not that complicated to launch stuff during the space race time with USSR. Was NASA killed by quality control procedures?
The article explains it fairly well. The SLS organization is a disaster. Not that this is unexpected.
NASA’s Office of Inspector General warned that Ground Systems Development and Operations, or GSDO, may be hard-pressed to have Kennedy Space Center's launch facilities ready on time. ...
"GSDO cannot finalize and complete its requirements without substantial input for the other two programs," said Jim Morrison, the assistant inspector general for audits. "And NASA is still finalizing the requirements for those programs."
In other words the pad work is delayed because they haven't finished the rocket design yet. And this is like 3 years before the launch.
Historically, said the OIG, NASA has taken a more centralized approach to the management of its in-house launch programs, synchronizing development activities through a single contractor. This is not the case for SLS, Orion and GSDO—each program is managed independently, with an emphasis placed on cross-program coordination. The OIG believes this approach is inefficient and could lead to scheduling delays.
I suggest NASA reads this paper:
Bayer, Martin. "Hermes- Lessons learnt." IAF, International Astronautical Congress, 45 th, Jerusalem, Israel. 1994.
Deadlines ruin projects, NASA is known to never make a deadline lol. Musk doesn't have the greatest record but when he does hit the milestone there is some extra. Example rocket landing at sea created the new ocean launch\landing pad program with automation research, docking, etc.. That will help more than just the rocket landings.
Well they can also do three Falcon 9 launches with the same amount of cores for a single Heavy which I expect gives them a lot more profit for roughly the same amount of manufacturing work.
It also helps clear their launch backlog and build a customer base. So it is not unreasonable that spend the first one or two years just doing Falcon 9 launches.
You must be either gaetano or effritz. Either way, both of are total idiots, who does understand a thing.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First off, it IS complicated. This IS rocket science.
Secondly, the problem is the GOP. They want NASA as a jobs bill only in their district. Private space is not under their control so they have issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
And yet, is the GOP that pushes the communist solution and works to kill off private space while O pushes private space to prevent peckers like you from continuing to destroy america.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Constellation, like SLS, were giveaways for the GOP. Thank god the SLS will be dead in 2-3 years, though NASA will have wave wasted some 30 billion because you GOP cocksuckers hate America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem has been neo-cons that increase spending while giving taxcuts and destroying the economy.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You are full of shit and never want to take responsibility for your actions, or the actions of your leaders.
It was the neo-cons that created the SLS in their bill. Worse, they are the cocksuckers that continue to work to kill off private space. NASA wanted 3 companies to handle manned launches. It was your leaders that pushed for 1-2 companies, pushing Boeing and SNC, and fought hard to kill off SpaceX from the list.
Stupid idiots like you are why we continue to elect GOP and dems. You refuse to take responsibility for your actions. Go suck on Boehner's Boehner.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
you cannot park a fully-fuelled mars departure stage in LEO for more than a couple days awaiting the rest of the mission package before the fuel evaporates
I think It would be weeks at the worst, and even that most likely because of the presence of Earth. The tanks can be sun-shaded, just like the JSWT. In the interplanetary space, months would be survivable...although methane is probably a better idea in the first place, at least until we start mining ice in space.
Ezekiel 23:20
You won't achieve anything worthwhile unless you set yourself some pretty outrageous goals. I'm pretty sure that Alan Kay's "If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough" also applies to deadlines.
Ezekiel 23:20
Well they can also do three Falcon 9 launches with the same amount of cores for a single Heavy which I expect gives them a lot more profit for roughly the same amount of manufacturing work.
Only until reusability kicks in, because with FH, you're expending just one upper stage instead of the three needed for three F9 launches (ditto for fairings). With roughly similar total payload mass in both cases, you're suddenly wasting just one third of your hardware compared to the F9 flights. It all depends on the stage refly costs, of course. I choose to remain a cautious optimist for the moment.
Ezekiel 23:20
Yeah if they can get it to work it will be a tremendous improvement.