NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

[RanulfC]

Probably the sadest part of this whole affiar is Congress is probably going to come out of this still smelling like a rose for taking "postive-action" on the "Launch-Gap" and "Knowledge-Loss-at-NASA" issues

But lets look at the "bright-side" that the Shuttle system WAS designed to be "modular-building-block" system and here's what we COULD have/or/had with a little luck

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/ShuttleVariationsFinalAIAA.pdf

Randy
(Which begs the question from me, what information has anyone found on the "Lenticular" Cargo Carrier Vehicle? )

 

[blackstar]

Probably the sadest part of this whole affiar is Congress is probably going to come out of this still smelling like a rose for taking "postive-action" on the "Launch-Gap" and "Knowledge-Loss-at-NASA" issues

Congress could save a bunch of orphans and kittens from a fire and would still be hated by the public.

But I don't accept that the administration is virtuous and Congress is evil in this debate. There was a clear political consensus on what to do--codified by two different Congresses in two NASA authorization bills--and the administration blew that to smithereens, producing the biggest slapfest that I've ever seen in the space policy arena. They tossed a hand grenade in the pumpkin patch and then walked away from the mess.

 

[Triton]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQxdrFeZkbA

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/588413main_SLS_Web_final.pdf

Artist's impression of Initial Lift Capability of Space Launch System (SLS).

Source:
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html

 

[Triton]

http://theloquitur.com/?attachment_id=25237

 

[Triton]

Will this launch system also be named Ares?

 

[Johnbr]

But well they make this one.???

 

[Michel Van]

something wonderful happen at Launch pad 39
last time you saw this was in 1975


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/MLmoves.html

 

[RGClark]

Keep in mind (you probably know this) that Obama canceled this rocket before.

And nothing has substantiatively changed between that rocket (Ares V) and this one, other than the clock being reset back to 2005; when Ares V was ET diameter and used SSMEs.

And the only reason that the SSMEs are back in there is because Congress pushed for them.

I believe the law called for STS elements to be used where practicable. That was a huge escape clause which went unused.

Here are some cost estimates for the SLS program:

Space Launch System.
"Program costs.
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was
stated that the SLS program has a projected development cost of $18
billion through 2017, with $10B for the SLS rocket, $6B for the Orion
Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and $2B for upgrades to the launch pad and
other facilities at Kennedy Space Center.[12] An unofficial NASA
document estimates the cost of the program through 2025 will total at
least $41B for four 70 metric ton launches (1 unmanned in 2017, 3
manned starting in 2021). The 130 metric ton version should not be
ready earlier than 2030."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs

So just for the development costs alone for the interim 70 mT
launcher scheduled to only make 4 launches, that's $4.5 billion per
launch. For 70,000 kg payload that's $64,000 per kg, and that's not
even including the production and operations costs.
If that larger $41 billion number is valid for the total costs that's
$146,000 per kg. A common saying going around nowadays is "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and
expecting a different result."
Building large launchers is supposed to result in reduced costs not
larger:

The SpaceX
Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?
by John K. Strickland, Jr.
September, 2011
"What amazes people is that SpaceX has broken the long-sought 1,000
dollars a pound to orbit price barrier with a rocket which is still
expendable. 'How can he (SpaceX CEO Elon Musk) possibly do this?' they
ask. The Chinese have said flatly that there is no way they can
compete with such a low price. It is important to remember that this
was not done in a single step. The Falcon 9 already has a large price
advantage over other boosters, even though it does not have the
payload capacity of some of the largest ones. The 'Heavy' will even
this score and then some. At last count, SpaceX had a launch manifest
of over 40 payloads, far exceeding any current government contracts,
with more being added every month. These are divided between the
Falcon 9 and the Falcon Heavy."
http://www.nss.org/articles/falconheavy.html

The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be
that they showed in stark terms that privately financed spacecraft, both
launchers and crew capsules, can be developed for 1/10th the cost of
government financed ones.


Bob Clark

 

[blackstar]

The most important accomplishment of SpaceX may turn out to be
that they showed in stark terms that privately financed spacecraft, both
launchers and crew capsules, can be developed for 1/10th the cost of
government financed ones.

Assuming that they're successful.

 

[airrocket]

NASA manned space program is so defunct it is a given that SLS is just another tax payer pipe dream to nowhere. NASA heavy will never go much beyond basic hardware testing. It is all just vaporware to lull the public into thinking that USA really has a manned space program. While in reality none of it is intended to ever come true only a hoax to keep sucking in the tax payer NASA jobs for votes program. Sad irony is the public is so out of touch with the USA manned space program that they continue to believe. Many citizens don't even realize the USA no longer flies the shuttle. Sad day but reality is that the NASA manned program is nothing more than a propaganda program.

 

[Byeman]

NASA manned space program is so defunct it is a given that SLS is just another tax payer pipe dream to nowhere. NASA heavy will never go much beyond basic hardware testing. It is all just vaporware to lull the public into thinking that USA really has a manned space program. While in reality none of it is intended to ever come true only a hoax to keep sucking in the tax payer NASA jobs for votes program. Sad irony is the public is so out of touch with the USA manned space program that they continue to believe. Many citizens don't even realize the USA no longer flies the shuttle. Sad day but reality is that the NASA manned program is nothing more than a propaganda program.

A. it always was propaganda program
b. SLS does not equate to NASA manned space program
c. it is not defunct,
1. There are USA astronauts on orbit as we speak
2. NASA and commercial interests will use other systems, such as Atlas and Falcon 9 and CST-100, Dragon and Dreamchaser

 

[RGClark]

Here's a nice article that expresses the idea that reducing the costs
to space is only going to be achieved when the development of such
vehicles is privately financed:

OCTOBER 20, 2011 AT 6:48 PM
Elon Musk and the forgotten word.
http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/elon-musk-and-the-forgotten-word

Some great points were made in this article such as this:

Each new administration wants to create its own space project,
refusing to follow through on the plans of its predecessor. It is for
this reason that I like to call Obama’s Space Launch System proposal
the-program-formerly-called-Constellation. Obama canceled the heavy-
lift rockets under Constellation so as to not have to build a program
created under Bush. He is now following up with a heavy-lift rocket
program of his own, renamed, redesigned, and restarted. Sadly, other
than a vast amount of wasted time and money, the differences between
these two projects isn’t really that much, when you think about it.
All this history suggests quite strongly that it is insane for the
taxpayer (or our representatives in Congress) to put any faith — or
money — in any NASA-built shuttle replacement project. As skilled as
NASA’s engineers might be, the politics of a government-built project
make it impossible for the space agency to ever complete it.

And then there's this:

Above all, what makes this private commercial space industry different
from NASA’s past shuttle replacement projects is the multitude of
parallel efforts. With NASA, we had one program at a time. When that
program failed, there was nothing to fall back on except to start over
with something new.
With these new companies, the United States has redundancy, variety,
and flexibility. Moreover, the competition between these companies
encourages efficiency and innovation, if only to demonstrate that
their product is better than their competitors.
In addition, because these companies own their own products, they are
not at the mercy of any specific administration or the whims of
Congress. Instead, as administrations come and go they will live on,
selling their product to whomever is in office. And if they need to
cut their work force to save money, they are free to do so, unlike
NASA which Congress owns and controls.

The author Robert Zimmerman is a strong proponent of privatizing
spaceflight. He will be interviewed on The Space Show, Wednesday, Dec.
21st, 7-9 PST. See the latest newsletter for this week for the show
here:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/newsletterfinal.htm

Links to hear the show live are here:

http://thespaceshow.com/live.htm

It will also be archived a few days after broadcast on The Space Show
web site:

http://www.thespaceshow.com/


Bob Clark

 

[blackstar]

"At its core, NASA’s government-built rocket is hostile to freedom."

Oh brother...

So, anybody who believes that a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration is not only wrong, but a commie/fascist/totalitarian!

Zimmerman spouts a lot of nonsense on his blog. But if you listen to his interviews, you'll learn that he is an expert on absolutely everything there is on the planet, and has never been wrong once. It's pretty amazing, really.

 

[Hobbes]

So, anybody who believes that a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration is not only wrong, but a commie/fascist/totalitarian!

No, Zimmerman's point has nothing to do with the statement "a heavy-lift rocket is necessary for deep space exploration".
Ie he doesn't dispute the need for a heavy-lift rocket, just the method chosen for procuring it. And I tend to agree with him (apart from his rant on freedom).
NASA is pretty much dead in the water when it comes to developing new launchers, thanks to its politicised budget and procurement system, and its huge overhead. The way forward is for NASA to buy launchers from private parties.

 

[blackstar]

Ie he doesn't dispute the need for a heavy-lift rocket, just the method chosen for procuring it. And I tend to agree with him (apart from his rant on freedom).

The whole thing is a rant on freedom (which he doesn't really define). And he has a tendency to write/speak in stark terms--i.e. "government = bad" and "private enterprise (however defined) = good." There's a substantial lack of sophistication and nuance and, yes, comprehension, in his writings. I tend to cringe when I see such a low opinion to content ratio--yeah, he's got lots and lots of opinions, but his knowledge base is pretty limited.

Start with his premise that launch vehicles can be "private enterprise." There's a fundamental problem with grouping that industry in with other aspects of the economy, because it is ALL subsidized in some way. ULA (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) are essentially captured by government contracts. Even the darling SpaceX wouldn't exist if they had not gotten government cash, mostly NASA, over the years. And Orbital Sciences--a major DoD contractor--has a long history of advocating certain government policies that hurt their competitors (like not allowing ICBMs to serve as launch vehicles) right up to the point where they switch their position and then take the opposite view (like allowing ICBMs to serve as launch vehicles). This isn't a free market and never has been. I get a kick out of seeing people like Zimmerman talk about the Atlas and Delta as "commercial" vehicles, especially since I've listened to a senior Intelsat executive (a commercial company that buys rocket launches) speak about them as essentially US government vehicles.

So his tendency to portray this stuff in stark terms is completely at odds with the real situation, where what we are talking about gradations of government involvement in launch vehicles, not either/or situations.

I've been in lots of meetings with NASA, USAF and industry reps, and nobody uses the word "freedom" in the way that Zimmerman does in that essay. They would roll their eyes at that. But Zimmerman likes to wrap himself in the flag and sing the national anthem a lot. Just look at his blog.

 

[OM]

Zimmerman spouts a lot of nonsense on his blog. But if you listen to his interviews, you'll learn that he is an expert on absolutely everything there is on the planet, and has never been wrong once. It's pretty amazing, really.

...Amazing? It's pathetically enough of a CT Nutter job that one has to ask whether there's a Maxson in Zimmerman's woodpile somewhere :

 

[RGClark]

I hate to seem like such a killjoy, but those SSME's are never going to fly. They'll spend another 10-20 years in a warehouse before they eventually get shipped off to museums.

On Tuesday I was at a discussion about the current human spaceflight situation and one of the themes was that this may be the beginning of the end of American human spaceflight. We may be seeing the long slow death of the program. The people who were involved in the discussion were pretty knowledgeable and include names that frequently appear in the press. They were fully aware of the pending SLS announcement and they were not optimistic about its chances of ever flying.

That's a good reason for moving to commercial spaceflight.

Bob Clark

 

[Grey Havoc]

http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/07/28/2158237/nasa-considers-apollo-era-f1-engine-for-space-launch-system

 

[blackstar]

There are so many better sources to cite than Mark Whittington. In case you don't know him, all he does is rewrite stuff he reads on the internet, posting it to pay-for-hits websites. He simply takes other peoples' articles and sucks the information out of them, performs no original research, and then collects a (small) paycheck. He also tries to squeeze partisan points out of everything he writes. For instance, he recently insulted Sally Ride because he didn't approve of her politics. It was a cheap shot at a woman who accomplished a lot.

Plus, he cannot spell.

Here's a better article on the F-1 subject:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_23_2012_p22-477250.xml&p=1

 

[Michel Van]

is not the first time NASA look in reuse of F-1 engine,
During S.E.I in 1989 for the use in first stage of new heavy lift rocket
Some were in begin 1980s also study of rebuild the saturn V for Mars mission
But here only F-1 with tank and electronics build of new hardware were consider better. because the Saturn V hardware was obsolete
i think there even consider to proposed the F-1 as engine shuttle liquid booster, for post-challenger time. but i not sure about this last info.

 

[blackstar]

Yes, it has been considered several times, although the proposals never got very far. Unfortunately, the book "The Saturn V F-1 Engine," by Anthony Young, does not have much information on these latter proposals.

I talked to several people recently (at Marshall and elsewhere) about reusing the F-1. Several of them noted that the originals were hand made, and one of the challenges today would be redesigning them so that they could be machine-manufactured, which would improve quality and ease of production. They would make a lot of other changes as well, but I didn't understand them because I'm not a rocket expert.

 

[Orionblamblam]

They would make a lot of other changes as well, but I didn't understand them because I'm not a rocket expert.

Presumably the turbopumps would be made stronger, lighter and more powerful, which would make a higher chamber pressure possible and thus both higher thrust and higer Isp. Isp is quite low by, say, RD-180 standards. A redesign of the chamber to accomodate that higher pressure would be needed, and a redesign of the injector head to eliminate the combustion instability problems that plagued the early F-1s, solved only by jury rigging. They could always retinker the expansion ratio and the nozzle curvature for improved performance. Material changes all around to make it lighter, stronger, more corrosion resistant.

 

[GeorgeA]

Here's the AIAA paper (preview) with the SEI-era plan for how the F-1 would be updated, by Shelton (MSFC) and Murphy (Rocketdyne):

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1992/PV1992_1547.pdf

One of the big materials issues would replacing beryllium with something more benign.

I also remember reading sometime in the last several months that, as part of the shutdown of the Canoga Avenue site, P&WR was disassembling an oven that was originally constructed for the F-1 nozzle, I assume for aging/curing or an equivalent process. Ass*u*ming it was indeed disassembled and not scrapped, that capability would have to be reconstituted elsewhere (Stennis?). Wish I remembered the source on that, sorry.

For context, here's William Greene's J-2X blog entry on the differences between J-2 and J-2X. It describes the types of changes necessary to bring such an engine into the modern era.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/J2X/posts/post_1338829889472.html

Edit: added J-2X blog ref.

 

[blackstar]

One of the big materials issues would replacing beryllium with something more benign.

As I understand it, beryllium is only an issue for manufacturing--the dust is toxic, so you have to be careful to remove that. Once it is milled/processed, it's perfectly safe. I seem to remember hearing about a guy who had a beryllium coffee table. It started out as a piece of space hardware, but they made a mistake in the manufacturing and it was not useable, so he used it as a table. I was surprised, but the guy who told me the story said that it's not really any different than having an aluminum coffee table. Doesn't make much sense to me, because I assumed they would have recycled the material.

 

[GeorgeA]

Right, and it's specifically the toxic exposure during manufacturing that they want to avoid. The Formula 1 community tried using aluminum-beryllium cylinder blocks a decade ago, and even with ultramodern machine tools and particle capture systems, they still couldn't meet the exposure limits.

I understand Sandia or its contractors still manufacture beryllium components for nuclear weapons, but I'd wager they have some kind of OSHA waiver that would be hard to replicate for any other product.

 

[blackstar]

Right, and it's specifically the toxic exposure during manufacturing that they want to avoid. The Formula 1 community tried using aluminum-beryllium cylinder blocks a decade ago, and even with ultramodern machine tools and particle capture systems, they still couldn't meet the exposure limits.

I understand Sandia or its contractors still manufacture beryllium components for nuclear weapons, but I'd wager they have some kind of OSHA waiver that would be hard to replicate for any other product.

Beryllium is still used in space optics systems because it apparently has great thermal expansion properties. I was just at a NASA center a few weeks ago (I forget which one--I've been at a bunch in the past few weeks) and saw a lab that had a sign on it that they had beryllium manufacturing equipment inside. I don't think that government labs get waivers. I think the issue is that they probably don't worry too much about the expense.

 

[blackstar]

Been traveling around to all the NASA centers as part of a project. Was at Stennis and got to see the test stands, including the stand where they are currently testing the J-2X and the old, rusty, very large, B stand where they will test the SLS first stage. For the B stand we were about 170 feet up. Took a few photos. (We had great weather, but they're about to get hit by a hurricane.)

 

[GeorgeA]

Those are supremely awesome, thanks DD.

I've read that while the B stand was originally rated for 12 million lbs. thrust (Saturn C-8 and all that), it has been "derated" to a much smaller figure. I wonder if that's a result of the overall deterioration over time or a specific limitation like the crane, water system, etc.

 

[blackstar]

Those are supremely awesome, thanks DD.

I've read that while the B stand was originally rated for 12 million lbs. thrust (Saturn C-8 and all that), it has been "derated" to a much smaller figure. I wonder if that's a result of the overall deterioration over time or a specific limitation like the crane, water system, etc.

I honestly don't know. I have a few photos of the overall stand. It's massive, and actually consists of two stands--B1 and B2. I forget which is which, but one of them is currently in use. We saw it and they had an RS-68 engine mounted, but because it is a contractor-owned engine, I could not take any photos. The other side of the stand is where they used to mount entire S-IC stages. We went up to the 16th or 17th floor and out on the wing and could look down. You sort of get the sense from one of those photos of just how tall that thing is--I leaned over the railing and looked down to where they plan on mounting the SLS core stage. That's the diamond shape in the center. The base of the SLS will go there, and the core stage will tower probably another 40 feet over where I was standing (dunno what the length of the SLS core stage is).

Although there is a lot of rust, they are starting refurbishment. It was not visible while we were there, but they have been taking out some excess steel down near the base. Actually, if I remember correctly, the first step was to install a platform to enable them to remove some steel. Despite the rust, the test stand was in use a little over a decade ago. Not sure what for. Although there's a lot of rust, the overall stand is not in bad condition. That's mostly surface rust, and they don't have any major structural rust.

The other stand was for the J-2X. We got to go up top on that and see the engine in the test stand. I've got pictures of that as well, and photos looking out over the other test stands. I think they currently have three J-2X stands, two of them active, one undergoing modernization. We also saw the stand where they test the rocket engines for Antares, as well a Blue Origin's R&D work. But the B stand was the coolest for me.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3sVuFjJlp4

 

[blackstar]

Is that at Marshall or Stennis? Doesn't look like the Stennis B test stand, unless it was upgraded after this film was made. I was also at Marshall, but we only drove past the test stands, which are not really used anymore. Didn't get to climb on them.

 

[GeorgeA]

Whichever stand that was, that was seriously badass.

 

[blackstar]

Here's one of the other Stennis test stands. We didn't get to this one. Apparently this was under construction to do high altitude tests of the J-2X, but those tests have been canceled. The stand is still under construction, however, and will be offered to other customers upon completion.

 

[blackstar]

Here's a barge with LOX on it. They bring the LOX and H2 to the test stands on barges from a centralized facility.

 

[blackstar]

Here's the B test rig. It's huge. I couldn't get a photo that accurately demonstrated just how big this thing is. They test the RS-68 on one side (I think it is the left side) and the other side is where they will test the SLS core stage.

 

[GeorgeA]

Here's one of the other Stennis test stands. We didn't get to this one. Apparently this was under construction to do high altitude tests of the J-2X, but those tests have been canceled. The stand is still under construction, however, and will be offered to other customers upon completion.

That's the A-3 stand. A great capability to have even if the J-2X is shelved. That would be a shame given its remarkable record of successful tests in the last year, but if it isn't needed right away I guess it's the right decision.

 

[blackstar]

That's the A-3 stand. A great capability to have even if the J-2X is shelved. That would be a shame given its remarkable record of successful tests in the last year, but if it isn't needed right away I guess it's the right decision.

I'm guessing that the other ones are the A-1 and A-2 stands. Not sure which one we were at, but it was probably A-1. (We were also at the E stand as well.) I don't know how the J-2X program has been scaled back. They are still doing engine tests, and in fact had done one about five days before we arrived. But the J-2X delivery date has been pushed out. I think that what this has meant is that they are doing more tests at each phase of the development, but progressing to the next phase much more slowly.

 

[jcd132]

Is that at Marshall or Stennis? Doesn't look like the Stennis B test stand, unless it was upgraded after this film was made. I was also at Marshall, but we only drove past the test stands, which are not really used anymore. Didn't get to climb on them.

Its the Marshall S-1C stand (re: Saturn V S-1C Stage Testing, 360P video). I had the pleasure of regularly working on that stand from the late 1980's through most of the '90's when it was being used for instrumented/advanced SSME testing.

 

[blackstar]

Thanks. That's what I suspected. I have a photo of that stand that I took from our van as we drove around the various test sites. We were behind schedule, so we didn't stop and walk around anything there, just did the window tour (actually, our guide was nice enough to let me out to see the original Redstone stand, which is now a historical site, but that was not what we were there for).

 

[jcd132]

Sorry to hear you weren't able to get a closer look. If you Google "Saturn V test stands", you'll find a link to a lot of Saturn V test facility pictures, this particular stand being just one of many facilities featured.