Since we are all bored to tears with the “Climate Reality Project” I figure If I don’t want WUWT’s ship to go down with Gore’s I had better provide something interesting to read. This fits the bill nicely as it’s the first positive new thing I’ve seen out of NASA’s space program this year.
The Space Launch System, or SLS, will be designed to carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, as well as important cargo, equipment and science experiments to Earth’s orbit and destinations beyond. Additionally, the SLS will serve as a back up for commercial and international partner transportation services to the International Space Station.
The SLS rocket will incorporate technological investments from the Space Shuttle program and the Constellation program in order to take advantage of proven hardware and cutting-edge tooling and manufacturing technology that will significantly reduce development and operations costs. It will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, which will include the RS-25D/E from the Space Shuttle program for the core stage and the J-2X engine for the upper stage. SLS will also use solid rocket boosters for the initial development flights, while follow-on boosters will be competed based on performance requirements and affordability considerations. The SLS will have an initial lift capacity of 70 metric tons (mT) and will be evolvable to 130 mT. The first developmental flight, or mission, is targeted for the end of 2017.
The Space Launch System will be NASA’s first exploration-class vehicle since the Saturn V took American astronauts to the moon over 40 years ago. With its superior lift capability, the SLS will expand our reach in the solar system and allow us to explore cis-lunar space, near-Earth asteroids, Mars and its moons and beyond. We will learn more about how the solar system formed, where Earth’ water and organics originated and how life might be sustained in places far from our Earth’s atmosphere and expand the boundaries of human exploration. These discoveries will change the way we understand ourselves, our planet, and its place in the universe.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmm…what’s the carbon footprint?
Go read some space blogs like http://www.transterrestrial.com . You find us space cookies less than enamoured of another NASA waste of time, engineering talent and money.
The damn thing will cost heaps, fly infrequently and be unaffordable to operate, consequently exploitation of the rest of the universe will be setback. Fortunately NASA isn’t the only game in town.
Seems to me they just integrated the shuttle into the hydrogen fuel tank. Pop an engine on the bottom of the tank and a crew/cargo module on the top and presto, you’re done! (/sarc) Half a century after the moon landings and this is what they come up with?
6 years…a long time w/out a man-rated heavy lift vehicle.
Thanks for this Anthony. A much needed distraction. 30 minutes into the Goreathon I had a full bucket and empty stomach.
First test flight not till 2017, six years from now. First manned mission not till 2021, ten years from now. Why bother the Russians and Chinese will be so far ahead of us by then. We did the old Saturn rocket for the moon mission in what 3-4 years. Maybe we should just wait and buy cheap rockets from the Chinese in four or five years.
Poor NASA … caught between a rockk and a hard place. And what can they expect from the new administration that comes to office in 2013? What kind of changes will they go through again?
SpaceX plans to have a slightly smaller launch vehicle (53 metric tons to LEO), the Falcon 9 Heavy, ready to fly in 2013. That will be 4 years earlier than this new NASA shuttle follow-on. SpaceX is advertising a total launch cost (including the vehicle) of $80M – $125M. http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php (I wonder if NASA can even pay their electric bill for this cost.)
As an experienced aerospace engineer, I have seen this particular rocket stack configuration proposed many times. Some of these proposals were made as early as the 1980’s. However, NASA has always seen fit to withdrawal their support every time. What will be different this time? If history is our guide, nothing.
Spacex could be launching people in two years, if given the funding.
The Dragon will be flying by the ISS this year, and another mission will resupply by docking either later this year or early 2012.
[sigh] Five decades into the Space Age. Well into the 21st century.
And NASA still can’t do any better than Apollo v2.0.
Just did some searching, and it seems that the flyby and first docking missions have been combined, and will take place Nov. 31, 2011, if the schedule holds.
Looks like a Saturn V recycled
Quick correction: I should have said, “I have seen very similar rocket stack configurations proposed many times.” I did not mean to imply this exact configuration. Each previously proposed configuration was “slightly” different.
This looks remarkably like the Mars Direct launch vehicle imagined by Bob Zubrin back in the 1990s… Glad to see NASA is being innovative….
I still am not comfortable with those multi-section SRBs. They are still prone to gas leak at the joints and if the leak is facing the main booster, are a potential catastrophic failure mode.
I prefer the SpaceX approach.
With over $2 billion slotted in for climate science, I’m surprised they even have enough left to develop a new soda bottle rocket.
Why don’t they build a shuttle that can make it to the moon with the capacity to land and takeoff again from a runway (built robotically ahead of time).
Oh, another NASA simulation… goody!
Enough with these “new” proposals. Just build the f************** thing!!!!! On past performance it’ll be canceled by next President or ready by 2023 having costed three times more than expected.
MrV says: September 14, 2011 at 11:08 pm
Why don’t they build a shuttle that can make it to the moon with the capacity to land and takeoff again from a runway (built robotically ahead of time).
[blink] You’re… kidding?
(If not, think “no lunar atmosphere to speak of” and take it from there.)
If the Saturn V could be considered as the Ford Model T of space flight, given the hundreds of billions that has been ratholed on NASA over the decades and the extra decade lead time on this project, they ought to be offering the equivalent of Ferrari 458 Italia, Instead it looks like they still haven’t made it to the Flathead V-8.
I’m not sure the Orion will ever fly; AFAIK it’s been scrubbed, $1.6 billion in. (That’s twice the cost of SpaceX’s total expenditures since the founding of the company, including orbit and de-orbit of the Dragon, which is arguably better than the Orion anyway.)
NASA Rockets are the ultimate waste of time.
After the nuclear bomb, the Manhattan Scientists designed and partly tested a space drive so powerful, it could have lifted thousands, or even millions of tons, into orbit, for a few dimes per kilo.
The best design for the space drive had a theoretical top speed of 10% of the speed of light – all this with 1950s technology!
Nowdays, noone even remembers it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
The Saturn V cannot be considered the space equivalent of the Ford Model T. The Model T was the first low-cost, factory-line mass-produced car, that was available in plentiful supply to the public. NASA has NEVER had a space craft that can even come close to meeting these traits. All NASA vehicles are produced as extremely expensive, one-at-a-time custom-built labor-intensive machines.
About the closest rocket we have to the Model T currently are the SpaceX vehicles. And they are not yet readily available (i.e., accessible) to a large portion of the public.
Sorry to be so negative, but I believe that we are still in the automotive equivalent of the late 1800’s with respect to our launch vehicle development maturity.
What ever happened to HOTOL. I know it had a smaller payload but it took off and landed horizontally and was completely recoverable.
wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HOTOL