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.
Oh look… a big missile with a capsule – but wait! What are those innovative, crazy SpaceX guys building? A missile – with a capsule on it. Obviously completely different to the Soyuz that the US must rely on, oh, hang on… it’s a missile, with a capsule… from the 1950’s… and I thought this was the 21st Century!
Hands up anyone who thinks it’s a good idea to build a brand new 747 in London, fly six people to New York, and then throw it away. For the return journey, you build a new 747, fly back, then throw that away too. Mad.
Want to know what happened to HOTOL? It became SKYLON – http://www.reactionengines.co.uk.
No, it’s not a ramjet, or a scramjet, or even a LACE engine, but something new, with really cutting edge technology. The project was recently reviewed by ESA amongst others, who declared that they could see no major stumbling blocks.
“The review ended with a consensus that no technical or economic impediments to the development of SKYLON or SABRE had been found.”And these are serious people who know what they’re talking about, not semi-informed internet trolls.
This autumn they’ll be completing a series of tests which will demonstrate that the primary heat exchanger – the one that takes in atmospheric air and chills it before it goes to the turbo compressor, avoiding the liquifaction problems associated with LACE. Successful completion of the tests release the next round of funding. Whether anyone likes it or not, they’re going to build this thing, because it is absolutely the right thing to do.
Will it work? Yes – and a lot of people are convinced and willing to put their money into it, as it’s entirely privately funded. Is it economic? Yes – this aspect has been studied in depth, from building the demonstrators, to full commercial operations. Green? Absolutely – burns hydrogen and oxygen, is entirely reusable, doesn’t add to the orbital debris problem, and can be turned around it two days.
Good old NASA, you have to admire their tenacity and dogged determination to continue with Constellation and build it, no matter what they call it this week. But fear not – the next President of the United States of Whatever will cancel it, or at least cut the funding to the point the whole sorry business will collapse in a bunfight of name-calling and finger-pointing, and then they’ll design a whole new… missile with a capsule on it.
Meanwhile, SKYLON will have revolutionised access to space, killed off the entire traditional launcher market, and be steadily, safely and profitably building a whole new space infrastructure.
Quatermass
Not every entry in the X prize is a rocket.
My post was about thinking outside the box, like your suggestion. Reading the site I think the SKYLON seems a possible candidate for future space travel. With the technology we have I believe we can make a reliable, safe and cheap space craft. If such a craft could be built, I believe it could expand space exploration. A craft that could become a space workhorse. A fleet of several of these craft could easily build a space station. A Mars mission becomes an affordable possibility.
Sadly, I think what NASA has unveiled is a step backward.
Davy123; I agree entirely. X Prize is a great idea, and should be supported and expanded – plenty of truely innovative thinking going on there. But it’s hands up time – I confess I have a vested interest in Reaction Engines as I’ve been working with them for more than 10 years, so I’m intimately acquainted with the people there, and have the utmost respect for them. Shoestring? They started out as three guys in a shed, with one steam powered computer! But anything that gets us away from this backward thinking as epitomised by the latest NASA retro yawnfest has to be applauded.
Perfect, for NASA at least: The video shows a great-looking simulation of what’s on the drawing board. Looks better than the simulations of the Aries etc. Not that anyone is erecting any of this on any launch pads…
In Big Climate Science (sic) we see great-looking simulations of what the climate will be if the modeler has an adequate understanding of the whole-earth climate system. Not that the models ‘forecast’ all that well. And how many of the climate model programmers cut their code-writing teeth developing models for Lehman Bros. etc.? How did that outcome work out for you?
And what’s the big deal about SSTO? in 1958 or so, the Vostok and the Atlas were SSTO launchers. They used kerosene and LOX, no doubt because of what I would term good economic specific impulse – Lb.sec/lb (Nt.sec/ruble) at the location of ignition. Now, once that place is 180 km up and moving 7.8 km/sec, the delivery price to the ignition site rises to – what – $1,000 – $10,000 per pound, to say the least. When the delivery cost to the site is measured in dollars per ton, I’d say it’s hard to beat kerosene and LOX for a low cost, dependable & safe propellant system. Ask the folks who are bringing us Falcon.
Tom
Correction – Economic specific impulse would be lb-sec/$ in the USA. (still Nt-sec/rb. in Russia).
Tom
How come they don’t just build Saturn Vs?
Because 10 Skylons are a cheaper option than two Saturn V’s, while 10 Skylons can lift more tonnes into space in one month than two Saturn V’s.
Rocket technology having a place in the near future space industry is a fallacy, and it is not only private investors that want Skylon to succeed… massive companies want it to become a reality as well. Companies such as BSkyB, TeleAtlas and Texaco who all have their future dependent on increased satalite presence in low, medium and high earth orbit.
Alot of people not in the know think Skylon is not capable of medium and high earth orbit… that is beside the point. There is a specific module designed to be carried up there which can move such satalites to those heights from Skylons LEO reach.
So for a Satalite Broadcasting company like BSkyB (News International) the cost of launching a satalite has dropped to about $10,000,000 from an the previously extremely hefty $200,000,000+. Space-X might bring that cost down to $100,000,000 but that is still too expensive for these companies.
While only private investors are willing to put money into Reaction Engines’ idea after the successful cooler test this year, next year with the full engine test you can expect the big multi-national companies getting their wallets ready. They would not even be looking to own part of the company, they are simply going to look into investing into their own cheaper operating costs and that is worth billions of dollars to them… especially as Skylon by design lends itself so well to retrieving faulty satalites and bring them back to earth for repair and getting back in orbit less than a week later. That would save a company the $100,000,000 MINIMUM for launch, plus $50,000,000 for an entirely new satalite to be made.
NASA itself has looked at Skylon and they are encouraging Reaction Engines Limited to make it a reality, these NASA rocket designs… they are not the main thing, NASA is looking to use Skylon and despite most of it’s budget for start up companies is being revoke by the state… there is a new rule that allows them to invest in foriegn companies within allied nations. Aka, the United Kingdom.
REL say they plan to build 90 of these things. NASA will probably buy 10 themselves and that is where it’s future undoubtably lies because it gets the technology in one quick swoop and can legally reverse engineer the design and all of a sudden, it has SSTO at it’s feet. It won’t need such a high budget to build a Skylon replacement.
No, you’re still thinking of NASA. SpaceX’s budgets are locked-in, and it is accelerating its launch schedule, held back only by NASA paperwork and red tape. It would have been doing manned transport to ISS already if not held to an approval-crawl prior to the COTS program (which NASA now wants to scrap to get back to the good old, slow, ways).