The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

NASAs budget request pulled the plug on SLS upper stage development for block 1B boosters and also seeks to manifest the Europa Clipper mission on a commercial rocket which will save at least $700B.

NASA also fessed up that SLS likely won't fly next year.

It's a dead program walking at this point in my opinion. I still think it will have one launch but that'll be it and that's not even a given at this point given how badly that program is going.

 

[Imaus]

NASAs budget request pulled the plug on SLS upper stage development for block 1B boosters and also seeks to manifest the Europa Clipper mission on a commercial rocket which will save at least $700B.

NASA also fessed up that SLS likely won't fly next year.

It's a dead program walking at this point in my opinion. I still think it will have one launch but that'll be it and that's not even a given at this point given how badly that program is going.

Ouch. I also had drab hopes for SLS, but at least I expected it to fly guys around the moon first. This basically axes any return to the moon for the 20s on an NASA profile. Are they going to just use Falcons and other commercials instead?

 

[Estebonrober]

Ouch. I also had drab hopes for SLS, but at least I expected it to fly guys around the moon first. This basically axes any return to the moon for the 20s on an NASA profile. Are they going to just use Falcons and other commercials instead?

Hasn’t it basically been a demonstration case of why NASA has had its budget cut every year for a decade? Just wasteful. I just want to get the JW Telescope out there. Please don’t scuttle that.

 

[Imaus]

Hasn’t it basically been a demonstration case of why NASA has had its budget cut every year for a decade? Just wasteful. I just want to get the JW Telescope out there. Please don’t scuttle that.

It's a catch 22. Flood NASA with more money, enough money, and they can do it. But they need something like 30 bil a year, for four-ten years. Not impossible, just redo Apollo basically, but that's the problem. You need to redo Apollo. Some guys in here are really optimistic - as in 'we could get to Mars in 4 years' optimistic, and that may not be as ungrounded as one thinks. NASA can get more funds than any company can ever raise, and for a longer period. That can produce huge results. It just needs, well, to happen. 20, 30 bil a year for four, eight years. A grand sum of 80-160/120-240 bil overall. That is more than enough to recruit everyone you need, set up whatever chains you need, and churn out rockets and missions. GEO space station? Done. Lunar base? Done. Mars Mission? On the pad and ready to go by year 7-8.

Whatever you want to say about this administration, or another, they just don't see NASA as a good investment. I would argue it'll be a huge PR win; but Obama was dealing with a recession and then ACA; and Trump is...focusing all budget on the military, as much as possible; along with a slew of other minutae that'll balloon and define him in the future. Since they see no immediate return on NASA, they - and nearly every administration since Nixon or even LBJ - start off on a honeymoon with NASA, don't see it going anywhere, and leave NASA high and dry in the restaurant; when we really need someone to really love NASA for four, eight years.

The best time this could had happened recently was Post-Cold War Clinton and, in the future, any administration with a low military budget and during an economic boon - which might be the 2025-2029 or 2029-2033 administration; as a recession might hit whoever is in 2021-2025.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ouch. I also had drab hopes for SLS, but at least I expected it to fly guys around the moon first. This basically axes any return to the moon for the 20s on an NASA profile. Are they going to just use Falcons and other commercials instead?

That's what Trump's budget is proposing. I misread articles on the budget - I took them to mean that NASA itself had requested the SLS cut when actually it was the Trump administration. They are also cutting science missions like WFIRST and are once again trying to shut down NASA's education centers. This budget won't survive - they have tried most of the cuts the last 2 years and Congress didn't play ball - but the cuts to SLS are new and a sign that support for it is wavering. It's basically up to Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama to keep it alive at this point, even more than it already is.

And it turns out that NASA is actually slow-rolling the development of a more powerful upper stage. It was supposed to be ready by the second launch but they are now saying it will not be ready till the 4th launch at the earliest. The SLS is a powerful rocket but much of its potential is wasted by the puny upper stage it currently has. And no one even talks about upgrading the boosters on the side of the rocket which was in the original plan anymore.

Hasn’t it basically been a demonstration case of why NASA has had its budget cut every year for a decade? Just wasteful. I just want to get the JW Telescope out there. Please don’t scuttle that.

No, I don't think so. They have had proposed cuts every year by whichever administration is in office but Congress usually undoes all of the cuts and sometimes even add more money that NASA doesn't request. It's worrying that Trump has been so consistent in trying to cancel science missions but so far Congress hasn't played along with him.

The one area that has seen a lot of real cuts are commercial crew and cargo servicing of the ISS. That whole program (especially the crew side) has been underfunded until very recently, solely due to the influence of Shelby who has used funding cuts on that program as a tool to hurt SpaceX. The game he plays is to underfund the program which causes delays and then he blames SpaceX for the delays and uses that as justification to further cut funds. This isn't conspiracy thinking, he's been pretty transparent in his attacks on the company as it threatens major contractors like ULA in his state.

It's a catch 22. Flood NASA with more money, enough money, and they can do it. But they need something like 30 bil a year, for four-ten years. Not impossible, just redo Apollo basically, but that's the problem. You need to redo Apollo. Some guys in here are really optimistic - as in 'we could get to Mars in 4 years' optimistic, and that may not be as ungrounded as one thinks. NASA can get more funds than any company can ever raise, and for a longer period. That can produce huge results. It just needs, well, to happen. 20, 30 bil a year for four, eight years. A grand sum of 80-160/120-240 bil overall. That is more than enough to recruit everyone you need, set up whatever chains you need, and churn out rockets and missions. GEO space station? Done. Lunar base? Done. Mars Mission? On the pad and ready to go by year 7-8.

Whatever you want to say about this administration, or another, they just don't see NASA as a good investment. I would argue it'll be a huge PR win; but Obama was dealing with a recession and then ACA; and Trump is...focusing all budget on the military, as much as possible; along with a slew of other minutae that'll balloon and define him in the future. Since they see no immediate return on NASA, they - and nearly every administration since Nixon or even LBJ - start off on a honeymoon with NASA, don't see it going anywhere, and leave NASA high and dry in the restaurant; when we really need someone to really love NASA for four, eight years.

The best time this could had happened recently was Post-Cold War Clinton and, in the future, any administration with a low military budget and during an economic boon - which might be the 2025-2029 or 2029-2033 administration; as a recession might hit whoever is in 2021-2025.

I think this decade will close with all major NASA manned exploration efforts shutting down. They will get to keep the ISS going and send astronauts to it but I think the SLS and Lunar Gateway will both die by the early 2020's. It sucks because Europe and Canada are both stepping up to support the Gateway.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Separate post because it's a completely different subject: I want to talk about the 737 MAX 8.

There's been 2 crashes of this new jet in about 6 months. The current culprit is inadequate pilot training for the aircraft. When Boeing upgraded the 737 MAX 8, they added beefy new engines. The baseline design couldn't really accommodate them and Boeing really wanted to avoid a major redesign which would entail a major certification change. So they placed the engines lower and further forward on the wing to make them fit on the aircraft. This arrangement means that the airplane will want to pitch up on its own due to thrust and and aerodynamic forces.

This is especially hazardous on takeoff as a hard pitch up on takeoff will stall the aircraft and make it crash. To fix this, Boeing added a new sort of autopilot that is always on. Typically, the autopilot is off during takeoff and is only engaged when the aircraft is at cruising altitude. This new autopilot, however, is always on and will automatically compensate for the pitch-up moment on the aircraft and keep the nose from going too high during takeoff. Apparently, even though this system is always on by default, there is no indicator to alert the pilots of this fact - they need training to understand how the new aircraft works.

Unfortunately, it appears that this training has been inadequate. So what happens is the plane takes off and as it climbs out, the autopilot kicks on to make sure the nose doesn't pitch up too aggressively. Not knowing that the plane is doing this automatically, the pilots begin to fight the autopilot. What follows is a struggle between man and machine where the plane begins to yoyo between pitching up and pitching down and eventually the plane crashes.

There may be other factors and it may be the case that this preliminary theorizing may be incorrect and maybe the system isn't functioning correctly or there may be compounding factors like failing sensors. In any case, China moved to ground their 737 MAX 8 fleet in what is widely seen as a move that is part of their ongoing trade war with the US. Once they did it, however, other countries followed suit even though the FAA - which is normally seen as the authority in aviation worldwide - insists the aircraft is safe. At this point I believe passenger sentiment is going to take over and people in the US will refuse to fly on the jet until the problem is addressed.

This is a massive setback for Boeing and I don't think they will get a clean resolution.

 

[red_elk]

There may be other factors and it may be the case that this preliminary theorizing may be incorrect and maybe the system isn't functioning correctly or there may be compounding factors like failing sensors.

I read about it recently in blog of Russian pilot, who flies 737 MAX in Oman Air company. IIRC he said that the main factor in one of previous accidents was a sensor failure - which wouldn't by itself be a catastrophic error, but this new autopilot feature added confusion to already stressed pilots. There were also other similar accidents where pilots managed to land plane successfully. He also says that the feature wasn't properly documented and some of the pilots were not even aware of it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The FAA is taking a lot of heat for allowing Boeing to put the plane into service without providing adequate training and documentation. It seems like this is an entirely avoidable situation.

 

[Estebonrober]

The FAA is taking a lot of heat for allowing Boeing to put the plane into service without providing adequate training and documentation. It seems like this is an entirely avoidable situation.

But! Boeing's profit margins!

They are a big recruiter around here since a lot of our brighter kids go to Missouri S&T which is UM Rolla and have a long history of electrical and aeronautical engineering. This sort of hits home and it is sad that there was somewhere I'm sure an engineer telling them that this was going to be an issue and it was ignored for profits sake. Obviously this is a supposition, but it feels like that kind of corporate thing.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

But! Boeing's profit margins!

They are a big recruiter around here since a lot of our brighter kids go to Missouri S&T which is UM Rolla and have a long history of electrical and aeronautical engineering. This sort of hits home and it is sad that there was somewhere I'm sure an engineer telling them that this was going to be an issue and it was ignored for profits sake. Obviously this is a supposition, but it feels like that kind of corporate thing.

That's my alma mater! That school is a direct pipeline to Boeing.


Big News: Bridentstine is floating the idea of flying Orion on a commercial rocket rather than SLS. I think this is it, it's dead.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

This is especially hazardous on takeoff as a hard pitch up on takeoff will stall the aircraft and make it crash. To fix this, Boeing added a new sort of autopilot that is always on. Typically, the autopilot is off during takeoff and is only engaged when the aircraft is at cruising altitude. This new autopilot, however, is always on and will automatically compensate for the pitch-up moment on the aircraft and keep the nose from going too high during takeoff. Apparently, even though this system is always on by default, there is no indicator to alert the pilots of this fact - they need training to understand how the new aircraft works.

Not typically. In modern airliners autopilot is usually switched on just after take off, and in some cases a bit later along the ascent but most of the time the ascent is done by the autopilot entirely.
In fact, normally the autopilot is partially on even while taking off so the pilot only needs to push the TO/GA button and the autothrottle will manage the engines along the whole take off and initial ascent according to the parameters previously introduced by the pilot into the flight computer.
Few seconds after taking off, once the aircraft has a good positive rate of climb, the pilot manually turns on the autopilot completely (so pitch and roll plus autothrottle) and the aircraft does the rest of the flight by itself, including departure and approach procedures, so the whole flight plan. If nothing weird happens, the pilot's job basically consists on introducing altitudes, headings and speeds in the autopilot control panel if required by the ATC, only touching the wheel/stick again just before landing, not even that if using autoland.

Spoiler :

Example of autoland with zero visibility. The plane is flown the whole time by the autopilot. The siren at 3:22 indicates the exact moment the autopilot is turned off by the pilot just as the nosewheel touch the runway.

(At 2:30 you can see there almost was a mid air collision and the pilots didnt even realized )

Unfortunately, it appears that this training has been inadequate. So what happens is the plane takes off and as it climbs out, the autopilot kicks on to make sure the nose doesn't pitch up too aggressively. Not knowing that the plane is doing this automatically, the pilots begin to fight the autopilot. What follows is a struggle between man and machine where the plane begins to yoyo between pitching up and pitching down and eventually the

That is pretty incredible. In Boeing and Airbus the pilot can read what exactly the autopilot/autothrottle is doing at every moment in the Primary Flight Display which is the big screen just in front of the pilot.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Apparently SpaceX made an unsolicited bid to launch Orion on a Falcon Heavy for the EM-1 flight. The whole industry is shook right now.

 

[uppi]

That is pretty incredible. In Boeing and Airbus the pilot can read what exactly the autopilot/autothrottle is doing at every moment in the Primary Flight Display which is the big screen just in front of the pilot.

I guess this wasn't supposed to be some sort of autopilot and especially not "the" autopilot, but rather a safety system that isn't supposed to be switched off unless you really know what you are doing. As such, they probably didn't think that it would be necessary to make an obvious display that the system is active. One could even speculate that they didn't want to draw too much attention to it, lest giving someone the idea that maybe this flies different enough that it should require recertification.

 

[uppi]

Apparently SpaceX made an unsolicited bid to launch Orion on a Falcon Heavy for the EM-1 flight. The whole industry is shook right now.

This would be the final blow to the SLS, right?

 

[red_elk]

The description of the system:

From what I read, at least in one case MCAS activated because faulty sensor sent incorrect attack angle data to the flight computer.
Pilots were already busy enough with sensor problem, and computer started to "help" them to control the plane.

 

[Imaus]

This would be the final blow to the SLS, right?

Yes. There would be nothing left for the SLS to do, so why keep working on it? Even LOG/DSG work could be done by commercial heavies such as a Delta IV or a Falcon Heavy or other future craft.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I guess this wasn't supposed to be some sort of autopilot and especially not "the" autopilot, but rather a safety system that isn't supposed to be switched off unless you really know what you are doing. As such,they probably didn't think that it would be necessary tomake an obvious display that the system is active.One could even speculate that they didn't want to draw too much attention to it, lest giving someone the idea that maybe this flies different enough that itshould require recertification.

It must be said that all Airbus aircraft since the A320 have a somewhat similar system working in the background, the so called "Alpha-Protection System" which limits the input of the pilot so he can't make unsafe maneuvers even if tried. Sully didn't like it that much, still he managed to land the plane on the river.

But while the Airbus system is an extra safety layer that has proved to work very well along decades, this MCAS thingy seems a shoddily way to patch a fundamental engineering flaw using software. Boeing looking a bit like Intel here.

 

[red_elk]

So the pilots can turn it off but do they know it has come on.
If the system does not tell them it has operated the pilots may think there is another problem.

As far as I understand, there was no indication that MCAS is on.
It can be turned off and it's temporarily disengaged for 5 seconds in case if pilots trim the aircraft manually.
But this MCAS feature wasn't in operation manual for 737 MAX, according to the guy I mentioned above.
Boeing sent a letter with description only after crash in Indonesia last year.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This would be the final blow to the SLS, right?

Yes. There would be nothing left for the SLS to do, so why keep working on it? Even LOG/DSG work could be done by commercial heavies such as a Delta IV or a Falcon Heavy or other future craft.

Pretty much it's dead at this point in my opinion, barring some hail mary that Richard Shelby manages to pull off. There's just no payloads that require it, though it does make some missions much easier.

Europa Clipper could have flown a direct trajectory to Jupiter with the SLS Block 1; but as many have pointed out, taking a longer route with a flyby on a FH would get it there faster than waiting for the SLS to be built. Similarly, the original concept for the Gateway was to fly pieces of it out to lunar orbit with a co-manifested Orion. Well, the SLS can't quite do that without the beefier second stage which is in the process of being defunded, so that became a moot point.

There were concepts for a huge, monolithic space station (Skylab II) and a massive non-folding space telescope (Super Hubble) but neither were funded and are just concepts that NASA can't afford to build while also funding the ISS and the SLS.

Bridenstine came out today and reiterated his support for the SLS and emphasized that shifting EM-1 to a commercial launch is all about proving out Orion and keeping schedule but the writing is really on the wall. And the idea that there is a real need to fly an unmanned Orion out to the moon on a test flight is silly to begin with but was basically NASA's way of justifying the rocket in the first place.

The challenge NASA is going to face with a commercial launch is that it will require some form of docking an upper stage to Orion to push it to the moon. Orion does not currently have any docking hardware and won't until the 3rd flight. They might be able to rush some solution to get it done but I think instead they're counting on some clever engineering from their commercial partners to work around this.

It must be said that all Airbus aircraft since the A320 have a somewhat similar system working in the background, the so called "Alpha-Protection System" which limits the input of the pilot so he can't make unsafe maneuvers even if tried. Sully didn't like it that much, still he managed to land the plane on the river.

But while the Airbus system is an extra safety layer that has proved to work very well along decades, this MCAS thingy seems a shoddily way to patch a fundamental engineering flaw using software. Boeing looking a bit like Intel here.

It's not a flaw in the sense that they messed up with the design. They knew very well what would happen by placing bigger engines that far forward and they wanted to avoid a bigger redesign by using this software to get around the problem. If there is a flaw, it is in the software, not in the design itself as they knew what they were doing and what problems it would create that they had to work around.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Separate post just to emphasize that almost all of the blame on the SLS situation lays with Boeing in how absolutely atrociously they have mismanaged this program with the balance of blame on NASA for failing to manage Boeing. NASA has criticized Boeing on the commercial crew program for using that program as a vehicle to extract maximum profit margin out of taxpayers. And as the NASA auditors recently showed, that same logic played out with SLS as well. In addition to the SLS and 737 MAX issues, the acting secretary of defense (a guy who spent decades at Boeing) is under fire for forcing the Air Force to buy F-15's it doesn't want while also forcing it to scale back orders of F-35's (built by Lockheed) which it also doesn't want to do. It's likely he'll be investigated for corruption and I wouldn't be surprised if he wound up in jail. To make everything even worse, the Air Force has been fighting Boeing over shoddy quality, cost overruns and schedule delays for the tanker contract they have.

It's been a terrible week for Boeing.

In any case, I think the SLS was a boondoggle from the start. The idea of re-using Shuttle components is attractive on paper but it's been a massive letdown from the outset. Right out the gate they had to start drastically re-engineering Shuttle parts to work on SLS which is much harder and more expensive than starting with a new design. Plus, the design just isn't that good to begin with and the development path that NASA settled on to upgrade the rocket over time has proven to be a costly mistake that could not be sustained across multiple turnovers in Congress and the Presidency. The only thing the SLS has accomplished is preserving Shuttle jobs in key Congressional districts. It hasn't pushed technology forward and it has been a massive drain on NASA's coffers.

Obama was smart to have cancelled it; too bad Congress overruled him.