Recommended Posts

Wow. :no: Kill it. With fire. Whoever thought there was any case for keeping it active no longer has an argument. The entire point of SLS was for Orion's deep space missions ... that's out the window now.

Given 2 launches a year it's 6 Earth-Mars conjunctions, probably over 12 years, to mount some Mars missions?

 

Yeah, that'll work :rolleyes:

 

And Orion is not going to Mars as they used to claim.  It's a crew taxi to and back from a Mars stack assembled in lunar orbit - per the ISS partners plan which is under discussion.

 

 

 

Edited by DocM
  • Like 1
  • 2 weeks later...

The SLS-Orion program is Ugly transitioning to F'ugly.

 

By the time this flies we may have seen at least 1-2 Grey Dragon circumlunar flights, suborbital and orbital ITS test flights, Blue Origin's New Glenn heavy class for which they are developing their SV space ship.

 

Ars....

 

Quote

Senior official: NASA will delay first flight of new SLS rocket until 2019

 

The space agency is now likely to miss Congress' original deadline by three years.

NASA has decided it must delay the maiden flight of its Space Launch System rocket, presently scheduled for November 2018, until at least early 2019. This decision was widely expected due to several problems with the rocket, Orion spacecraft, and ground launch systems. The delay was confirmed in a letter from a NASA official released Thursday by the US Government Accountability Office.
>

 

 

GAO report: PDF....

 

Quote

What GAO Found

 

With less than 2 years until the planned November 2018 launch date for its first exploration mission (EM-1), the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations (NASA) three human exploration programsOrion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion), Space Launch System (SLS), and Exploration Ground Systems (EGS)are making progress on their respective systems, but the EM-1 launch date is likely unachievable as technical challenges continue to cause schedule delays. All three programs face unique challenges in completing development, and each has little to no schedule reserve remaining between now and the EM-1 date, 
meaning they will have to complete all remaining work with little margin for error for unexpected challenges that may arise. The table below lists the remaining schedule reserve for each of the programs.

Schedule Reserve to Exploration Mission 1 for Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch System, and Exploration Ground Systems Programs.

[Remaining reserves in days]

Exploration Mission-1

Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle: 0
Space Launch System: 80
Exploration Ground Systems: 28

Source: GAO Analysis of NASA data | GAO-17-414

The programs all face challenges that may impact their remaining schedule reserve. For instance 

 

  •  the Orion programs European Service Module is late and is currently driving the program schedule; 
  •  the SLS program had to stop welding on the core stage which functions as the SLSs fuel tank and structural backbonefor months after identifying low weld strengths. Program officials stated that welding resumed in April 2017 following the establishment of a corrective action plan;
  •  the EGS program is considering performing concurrent hardware installation and testing, which officials acknowledge would increase complexity; and
  •  each program must integrate its own hardware and software individually, after which EGS is responsible for integrating all three programs components into one effort at Kennedy Space Center.

>
>

We'll just leave that here ... no need to say we pretty much called all of this.

 

Other than the joke about the ESM. Frankly that one is just funny, considering that it wasn't even needed for ETF-2 -- unless they were actually serious about putting humans aboard that thing during that flight.

 

/sigh ... too late to cancel it.

  • 2 weeks later...

Reading about the findings with the weld process failures ... 

 

Good thing they caught that in time. Those LH2 tanks would have unzipped as soon as they were put under any kind of a load. GOOD GRIEF. Talk about a kaboom ... and it would have taken the Pad (and likely the plumbing) with it. Yikes.

 

Disaster averted. THIS time around.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/nasa-study-warns-against-putting-crew-on-huge-rocket-s-first-flight

 

NASA Study Warns Against Putting Crew On Huge Rockets First Flight

A review ordered by the Trump administration finds costs and scheduling problems.

A NASA working group has concluded after a two-month review that sending astronauts on the first flight of its massive new rocket wouldnt be feasible due to the immense costs of safely accommodating a crew on the planned 2019 mission, the first step in Americas return to human space exploration.
>

 

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-holds-media-teleconference-today-on-exploration-mission-1-status

 

NASA Holds Media Teleconference Today on Exploration Mission-1 Status

NASA will provide an update on the status of Exploration Mission-1, the first integrated flight of NASAs Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, during a media teleconference at 3 p.m. EDT today, May 12.

The call will stream live on NASAs website.

The teleconference participants are:

    Acting NASA Administrator Robert Lightfoot

    Associate Administrator of NASAs Human Explorations and Operations Mission Directorate William Gerstenmaier

Listen to todays media teleconference live online at:

https://www.nasa.gov/live

4 hours ago, DocM said:

A review ordered by the Trump administration finds costs and scheduling problems.

A NASA working group has concluded after a two-month review that sending astronauts on the first flight of its massive new rocket wouldnt be feasible due to the immense costs of safely accommodating a crew on the planned 2019 mission, the first step in Americas return to human space exploration.

This is exactly what needed to happen. Some real common sense thrown into this completely unworkable and dangerous gamble that wasn't going to be able to happen until 2019 at the earliest. 

 

Kill this ####### thing with cutting torches and concrete already. Make it sleep with the fishes. Turn it into artificial coral reefs. Let it serve some purpose for the love of all that's decent -- before lives are lost because OldSpace tried to hotshot their way through corner-cutting. 

 

Oh -- and that crack about "the first step in America's return to human space exploration"? I know those weren't your words, @DocM ... but that's just funny, seeing how SpaceX is going to beat 'em by a year or more. Oh wait, they can't possibly count that can they. It's Boeing/LockMart/Aerojet/ATK feeding them the "truth", after all. They're the WWE of Aerospace -- if it ain't theirs then it doesn't exist and if it does it ain't ####. Anything to deflect from the established dialogue.

Edited by Unobscured Vision

$600-$900 million a year to convert EM-1 to crewed.

 

Crew on 1st SLS flight while making SpaceX and Boeing fly 7 un-crewed before flying crews.

 

ASAP and others had not one, not two, but more like 3 cows. Each.

 

Naw, nothing wrong with this picture :whistle:

Yeah. DELIBERATE stalling, and nothing short of that.

 

SpaceX has been played in this whole scenario. Sure, they'll let 'em resupply the ISS and even get in on Mil/Gov launches -- but in the grand scheme of things, where it really mattered (manned spaceflight), SpaceX has been playing by the rules and kept getting the SHAFT the whole time. Dragon 2 has been ready for two ####### years. Artificially contrived and completely unnecessary requirements, then changing the timetables again and again, mis- and non-communication, maddening bureaucracy, endless delays with certification inspections on NASA's part just to KEEP the advantage on the side of the entrenched elements to boot?!

 

UN-#######-FORGIVABLE.

 

If I was Elon I'd be ENRAGED with this development. As in "grounds for packing up my Company's ####, taking my technology and people, then giving Uncle Sam the bird just out of sheer disgust as I left to ply my trade elsewhere" kind of enraged. How dare NASA and OldSpace conduct themselves like this. That's how Elon must be feeling right now, even if he (probably) doesn't act on it. I know I'd be mad as hell and wanting answers.

I don't care what political ideas a person sides with. Anyone with a little knowledge of the aerospace industry knows that this was an idea pushed by an administration looking for a good cheap headline. Sad thing was, they were willing to risk people's lives on it. 

 

I'm glad it went the way it did. NASA, new space, and old space aside, Life is much more precious than any delay or deadline. 

 

Elon knew what he was getting into when the NASA contracts came in.  I mean NASA and him had a disagreement about the amount of ###### an astronaut produces and what size sewage tank should be on D2. As long as he keeps checking the boxes, SpaceX will outshine any organization. 

Edited by flyingskippy

This huge QC issues on the Boeing tanks and vertical welding jig are inexcusable, there's the MAF tornado delay, and there's talk the SLS software is buggy as hell and somewhat of a cover-up is going on wrt to that.  And Orion is even further behind, dragging SLS even further right. A total Charlie Foxtrot if ever there was one. 

 

I see at best the SLS-Orion stack flying a few missions then fading away as Vulcan-ACES, Falcon Heavy, New Glenn and, IMO the 500 lb gorilla behind the curtain, a likely ITS-derived heavy lifter make it irrelevant.

  • Like 1

If they really want to make SLS work? They need to replace metal as the primary component. 

 

Oh, wait. This would require a fundamental redesign and rethink -- and they simply aren't the creative types. 

Speaking of the SLS/Senate Mafia, the Alabama company building the SLS test stands got quite a windfall....

 

Just keep in mind: just the structural test stand for SLS is going to cost $76 million+. SpaceX's entire Brownsville, Texas spaceport will cost ~$100 million.  

 

http://spacenews.com/report-criticizes-development-of-sls-test-stands/#sthash.IgjXdsgN.dpuf

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — A rush to complete two test stands needed for development of the Space Launch System caused their cost to nearly double, even as the overall program suffered delays, according to a new report.

 

The May 17 report by NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that the cost of the two test stands built at the Marshall Space Flight Center for testing SLS propellant tanks increased by more than 87 percent, to $76 million, as the agency overlooked potential long-term cost savings in a effort to expedite their construction.

NASA entered into an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in August 2013 to construct Test Stands 4693 and 4697 at Marshall, on the grounds of the Army’s Redstone Arsenal. The Corps of Engineers then awarded a contract to an Alabama construction company, Brasfield & Gorrie, to build the stands. The stands are large steel structures designed to perform load testing on the rocket’s liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen tanks to simulate the conditions the tanks will experience during launch.
>

 

 

teststand4693-768x424.jpg

 

Edited by DocM

You know what's really disgusting about this? If the same thing were being built for SpaceX for $25~$30 million, these same talking heads would show us how far the veins in their necks can pop out. They'd insist that SpaceX use the existing facilities at Stennis and use their own money to upgrade them.

 

Not that SpaceX would, or even needed to use Stennis.

 

(Oh look, is that Bruno in the background with the "cat-that-ate-the-canary" grin?)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!