Space Launch System

BULLER

http://www.space.com/12941-nasa-unveils-giant-rocket-space-launch-system.html



NASA has finally revealed its design for the agency's next-generation heavy-lift rocket to carry astronauts on future deep space missions.

5 Segment Solid Rockets and 5 shuttle SSME's on the bottom.

Not sure about using solid boosters, but they want to upgrade to liquid and will hold a competition for it in later years.

SSME's are also designed to be reusable so theyre design is complex/expenisve; I'd be in favour of a new cheaper engines like a revamped F1 derivitive but meh!

First launch scheduled for 2017, to launch an unmanned Orion capsule, possibly round the moon and back.

Not sure how much it will lift to orbit in this config?! I've heard 73 to 110 tons branded about. (to put into perspective the Saturn V moon rocket could lift 130mT, Shuttle system was about 70mT)

Beeker

BULLER wrote: »

http://www.space.com/12941-nasa-unveils-giant-rocket-space-launch-system.html



NASA has finally revealed its design for the agency's next-generation heavy-lift rocket to carry astronauts on future deep space missions.

5 Segment Solid Rockets and 5 shuttle SSME's on the bottom.

Not sure about using solid boosters, but they want to upgrade to liquid and will hold a competition for it in later years.

SSME's are also designed to be reusable so theyre design is complex/expenisve; I'd be in favour of a new cheaper engines like a revamped F1 derivitive but meh!

First launch scheduled for 2017, to launch an unmanned Orion capsule, possibly round the moon and back.

Not sure how much it will lift to orbit in this config?! I've heard 73 to 110 tons branded about. (to put into perspective the Saturn V moon rocket could lift 130mT, Shuttle system was about 70mT)

I hate to say it but I don't think we will ever see this happen. NASA's plan using the current budget is just not a runner. This will be scrapped in favour of the new heavy lift plan from Space X or some other design.

Beeker

BULLER wrote: »

Not sure how much it will lift to orbit in this config?! I've heard 73 to 110 tons branded about. (to put into perspective the Saturn V moon rocket could lift 130mT, Shuttle system was about 70mT)

70 tons starting off but building up to a 130 ton version. I sure would love to see one of these launch but still believe it will never fly:(
Hope I'm wrong:)

BULLER

Well whatever happens, the future is bright! If this does turn out to be a non-runner, a spaceX super heavy lift will always be lurking in the background waiting for funding.

I just found more specs on the chosen SLS config:

• 8.4 meter diameter core stage — same size as the shuttle tank – compatible with facilities at Cape, with tech developed for Constellation.

• SRBs used for the first and maybe second test flight….will compete with full-up procurement activity for liquid boosters.

• starts with 90mT capability (3 SSME's) and grows to 130mT with 5 SSME's and bigger upper stage.

• J-2X upper stage – same as Ares V

AugustusMinimus

Will never see the light of day and will be more Billions thrown into a black hole.

Beeker

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Will never see the light of day and will be more Billions thrown into a black hole.

I agree, shame all the same.

AugustusMinimus

Beeker wrote: »

I agree, shame all the same.

As you say, Space X will build a super heavy lifter.

They already have designs for the Falcon XX which would lift 140 tonnes to LEO.

BULLER

The republican senate are essentially forcing thing through to keep jobs; the continued development of the Orion vehicle is a complete waste of time for example.

What does my head in is the need to mandate to man-rate this SLS. There is absolutely no need for it... We'll have SpaceXs Dragon, Orbitals Taurus, Boeings capsule on a man-rated Atlas, sierra nevada, and now ATK Liberity Rocket to get people up there. Why Orion?! Jobs.

But if this somehow all works out, NASA will have a hell of a lotta options come the end of this decade, providing they keep on funding some commercial grants.

namloc1980

Can't see this thing ever flying and I expect it will get binned just like Ares V in a a few years. Unfortunately billions will be wasted on it in the meantime.

Even if it is built, NASA has no mission for this thing. The whole idea of sending men to an asteroid sounds more bizarre every time I hear it.

thecommander

This is the bit that upset me the most.

SLS will not be decked out in the Saturn V “White and Black” paint, as seen in graphics of the vehicle, which sources note was only for publicity purposes. The vehicle will sport the orange “spray applicated” Thermal Protection System (TPS) foam, as seen on the Shuttle External Tanks.

Rubecula

If/when a super heavy lift vehicle is launched, could this be the start of building a big powerful vehicle in space itself?

dbran

Hi

On the looks of it, unless something radically changes in Nasa this is likely to be just another model like the constellation.

The whole reason why the constellation was cancelled was the fact that it was not sustainable on the budget that Nasa were being given

However the budget spend is put at $3 billion every year for 6 years ie $18 billion dollers. When you consider that Nasa spent just $9 billion dollers in the entire 6 years of the Constellation Programe you can see what a tall order it would seem to be. This is even if they wont have the cost of running the space shuttle any more.

Added to this is the fact that Nasa just seems to be useless at budgeting. If one looks at the James Web Telescope project, a few months ago it was 50% complete. Now it is only 40% complete due to expected overruns in the later part of the project. This project is inevitably going to eat massive chunks out of everyone's budget, (even if it is something that should get built IMHO).

To the other guy who mentioned space x et al, these private sector craft are only ment to fly to low earth orbit and not designed for deepspace such as Orion. To leave Earth Orbit you need a lot more thrust, life support and also Earth re-entry systems. Now it is true that Space X is supposedly developing a deep space version of the Falcon but I wonder if this is just spin. Apparently the last test flight of the falcon didnt go so well. It developed an "anomoly" in the second stage.

So while the advances of private sector in space flight are very encouraging there is still some way to go before you can count on them. They are still very much dependant on nasa for funding and resources.

Anyhoo interesting times are ahead I'm sure.

dbran

BULLER

dbran wrote: »

Hi
To the other guy who mentioned space x et al, these private sector craft are only ment to fly to low earth orbit and not designed for deepspace such as Orion. To leave Earth Orbit you need a lot more thrust, life support and also Earth re-entry systems. Now it is true that Space X is supposedly developing a deep space version of the Falcon but I wonder if this is just spin. Apparently the last test flight of the falcon didnt go so well. It developed an "anomoly" in the second stage.

So while the advances of private sector in space flight are very encouraging there is still some way to go before you can count on them. They are still very much dependant on nasa for funding and resources.

Anyhoo interesting times are ahead I'm sure.

dbran

Hey! I'm James, nice to meet you!

Au contraire, SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft has a more resistent heat shield than that of Orions. It is capable of reentry velocity from Mars for example.

Beyond the moon spacecraft will inevitively be inflatable modules with plenty of life support and tons of fuel launched by a HLV. Theyll then send astronauts up to dock with it in a capsule lauched by a commercial rocket like F9 or T2. If you think astronauts are going to travel Mars in 6 month each way trip in a cramped Dragon/Orion capsule alone, then you're seriously deluded!

Also about the problem with the F9, I believe theyve ironed out the "anomoly". Thats why theyre testing it at the moment, to find these mistakes! Also, it mustnt have been too bad seeing has their capsule made it to perfect orbit. I'd call that a successful launch.

SpaceX and Orbital aren't dependent on NASA really; they have sufficient funds themselves to complete the development and man-rating of their rockets themselves. They both have signed big contracts to launch goods to orbit so theyve plenty of dosh at the moment. The cots grants have been used to speed up the process.

Loads of negativity around here, and rightly so after the disappointment of Constxn, but there's plenty to look forward to!
When these companies get up and running there'll never be a gap with providing access to space ever again.

dbran

Hi James

It's definitely interesting times ahead and we will just have to wait and see.

I believe that Spacex are due to do the first test flight to iss in November so fingers crossed.

Regards

Dbran

BULLER

Skerries

will it have lasers? pew! pew!

AugustusMinimus

BULLER wrote: »

Saturn V only lifted 118 metric tonnes to LEO ?

I can't understand the development of the 70 to 77 tonnes launcher or the man rating of the rocket.

Surely all they should need is a man rated launcher at the very max which can lift 30 tonnes into orbit with no need to man rate the SLS with it only being a cargo launcher.

Doesn't matter anyways cause this will never launch.

* Awaits 2017 and hopefully being proved wrong

Cork boy 55

Hope and change

Well, that will keep the public employees unions busy for another year and a half.

lord lucan

No enthusiasm for it whatsoever here. A fancy PR stunt for NASA and the Federal Government but nothing will come of it. The promo picture gave me a giggle,looked like the work of a marketing company. A Saturn V lookalike,Stars & Stripes flying proud and the Moon in the sky.:)

BULLER

lord lucan wrote: »

No enthusiasm for it whatsoever here. A fancy PR stunt for NASA and the Federal Government but nothing will come of it. The promo picture gave me a giggle,looked like the work of a marketing company. A Saturn V lookalike,Stars & Stripes flying proud and the Moon in the sky.:)

Not really a PR stunt for either to be honest. The people who pushed it were the Republican-backed senate in their own selfish effort to keep jobs in their respective locale. Its been coined the Senate Launch System. They even told NASA how to design the thing sure!
I'll just be happy if it does eventually fly, probably wont but space jobs are better than nothing.


Commercial human spaceflight got 500m which was the important thing. The "federal government" originally requested 850m which would have had America back in space in 2 years. But the republicans fought hard to push it down to 300m. 500m was the compromise which is okay.

namloc1980

So the SLS had a grilling before the Senate in September and it didn't make for pretty reading:

Read budget here

The most fiscally constrained scenario envisages unmanned first flight in Dec 2017, with 1 crewed flight in each of 2021, 2023 and 2025. Total cost for these 4 flights (3 crewed).......$41BILLION :eek: It also envisages that the 130 ton version wouldn't fly before 2030! The 2021 flight would be a circumlunar flight, with the 2023 and 2025 being sent to a destination BEO (probably asteroid).

The most optimistic scenario envisages first flight in 2017 with one or two flights per year thereafter but with an obvious significant increase in costs.

A massive cost for less than a handful of potential flight. Can't see this thing ever flying.

AugustusMinimus

I'll repeat what I said. Will never be built.

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/07/soyuz-shuttle-repair-space-station

Some Republican senators and space veterans have also protested that the US will be paying large sums to Russia's Roskosmos to put its astronauts into orbit. Nasa announced in March that Russia was increasing its fee for each astronaut from $56m (£35m) to $63m from 2014.

Back in 2002 Mark Shuttleworth paid $20m to get to the ISS

Even with the Russians turning the screws soyuz is still going to be cheaper than man rating the SLS ?

If they asked nicely and stumped up some cash I'm sure the Russians would sell them Energia

AugustusMinimus

The great irony here is that bringing back Energia would be a much better solution in any case.

And obviously not cost that much at all. Energia's boosters are still in production for instance.