NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

jcd132 said:
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.

Got to see tons of other stuff, however, including SLS welding machinery, the rocket propulsion lab, some human spaceflight facilities, the ISS backup mission control, etc. And at Stennis we got to stick our heads inside the engine exhaust tube. Had to visit seven NASA field centers in less than three months for work, so I haven't been short of rockety stuff to do.
 
Dream ChaserIllustration courtesy SNC Space Systems
Now that the U.S. space shuttle program has ended, NASA is turning to the private sector for the next generation of reusable manned spacecraft-including the Sierra Nevada Corporation's Dream Chaser (illustrated above).
(Related: "After Space Shuttle, Does U.S. Have a Future in Space?")
The brainchild of the Colorado-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, the Dream Chaser is one of five private-spacecraft proposals that won U.S. $50 million in federal grants under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
The proposed new shuttle's primary mission is to transport cargo and up to seven astronauts to the International Space Station, and to return crews safely to Earth, according to Sierra Nevada's website.
Among Dream Chaser's advantages: It's designed to launch on top of Atlas rockets, which have been reliably used by NASA since 1957.
Last month Sierra Nevada was awarded an additional $213 million grant—along with $440 million to SpaceX and $460 million to Boeing Corporation—to continue plans that, NASA said, would set the stage for "demonstration missions to low-Earth orbit by the middle of the decade."
—Richard A. Lovett
 
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate

Really? Everything?

Don't you think the Romans kinda said the same thing a few thousand years ago?
 
blackstar said:
Grey Havoc said:
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate

Really? Everything?

Don't you think the Romans kinda said the same thing a few thousand years ago?

Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.

Wow. Thanks for that. I had no idea that there was some disagreement between Bolden and Garver. Think she's angling for his job?

Bob Clark
 
RanulfC said:

Thanks for that. Boeing is building the SLS core stage. On page 11 they give the dry weight of the core stage as 187,500 lbs., 85,000 kg. Also, interesting is that on page 14 it's stated that it will use the aluminum alloy used on the original shuttle ET rather than the aluminum-lithium alloy used on the super lightweight ET. This is to save on costs.

Bob Clark
 
Grey Havoc said:
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception: Critical Decisions Loom For U.S. Space Program (Aviation Week)
Human spaceflight does not have as well-defined a group of advocates as robotic space science, and the goal-setting process is trickier. The NASA Reauthorization Act of 2010 reflects a compromise between the White House and Congress over the Obama administration's desire to turn all U.S. human spaceflight over to the private sector. Instead, NASA is also funding development of a government-owned heavy-lift rocket—the Space Launch System (SLS)—and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle to take human explorers beyond low Earth orbit. But the agency comes up for reauthorization again in the new Congress that convenes in January, and there are hints in the ongoing power struggle between Administrator Charlie Bolden and his deputy, Lori Garver, that the White House may try another push to end government development of the SLS in favor of commercial crew funding. Bolden is seen as a backer of the traditional approach, and there have been fairly transparent press leaks from within the agency that the White House—or at least Garver—wants to get rid of him. Watch the budget request for the outcome on that one too.

I must be one of the few people who is optimistic about the space program. For one thing, I think the commercial crew program will succeed at returning us to space.
Also, I'm optimistic about commercial plans of sending humans to the Moon such as 'Golden Spike'. The reason is because SpaceX has shown that development costs for both launchers and crew capsules can be as much as 1/10th as costly when following a commercial approach rather than the traditional NASA approach. Then the billion dollar development cost that Golden Spike quoted for their program might only be a tenth of that if following a commercial approach for the funding of its development.

Bob Clark
 
sferrin said:
Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.
 
Grey Havoc said:
Things are going to hell in a handbasket at an ever accelerating rate, and the space program (what remains of it) is no exception


There is much more the US space program than NASA manned missions. NASA=/US space program. NASA was a cold war agency. There is no need for a govt managed manned space exploration program. Lunar bases would be of no benefit to the US govt
 
Byeman said:
sferrin said:
Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?
 
OM said:
Byeman said:
sferrin said:
Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?

The onus is on him to explain his comment. Mine is self explanatory.
 
Byeman said:
OM said:
Byeman said:
sferrin said:
Pretty sure they didn't see their abilities in high speed missile developement deterorate to virtually nil.

unsubstantiated armwaving.


...Care to explain that one further, or are you just satisfied at leaving it just an unsubstantiated snark?

The onus is on him to explain his comment. Mine is self explanatory.


...Were that the actual case, I wouldn't have asked for the explanation/clarification. Again, query is posed. Care to answer?
 
IMHO, SLS is not a flexible or sustainable capability and should not be developed. Instead, multiple private rockets and spacecraft should be funded.

It is conceivable that Garver drives towards that, she has been consistent in talking about more flexible and organic private sector projects, compared to traditional large NASA ones.

It could prove to be a great choice for NASA. They wouldn't need to compete with private industry: they could procure launches and concentrate on where they have good unique experience like in space operations.

If solid ICBM:s need money, that's not the business of NASA manned spaceflight.
 
http://www.dvice.com/2013-1-25/nasa-restarts-most-powerful-rocket-engine-ever-built
 
Grey Havoc said:

Yeah, they're going to do a few dozen firings of the gas generator and the powerpack. Unfortunately, no full scale engine firings are planned. They will only do that if there is another contract award for further risk reduction on the engine.

I got a tour of Marshall last summer when we were visiting all the NASA field centers. We got to see some of NASA's F-1 work, including a turbopump cutaway. I'm somewhat kicking myself for talking to the wrong people at that point in the tour. All I heard was that they were scanning the hardware and creating computer models. I didn't hear anything about them planning live firings. Had I heard any of that, I might have gotten myself an invite to the hot fire of the gas generator.

Recently I've gotten some info from PW&R about their planned work. Nothing too interesting. I don't have their schedule or anything.
 
NASA Space Launch System (SLS) flier found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-NASA-Photograph-Space-Launch-System-SLS-Concept-Launch/131049318582?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18580%26meid%3D2799183320689053661%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8476%26rk%3D3%26rkt%3D3%26sd%3D261323855772%26
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqF,!qUFI,NICt7zBSN90H7QJg~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqF,!qUFI,NICt7zBSN90H7QJg~~60_57.JPG
    282.8 KB · Views: 39
  • $(KGrHqJ,!lIFIlWq9uumBSN90L3+w!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqJ,!lIFIlWq9uumBSN90L3+w!~~60_57.JPG
    294.4 KB · Views: 43
Another NASA Space Launch System (SLS) flier found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-NASA-Space-Launch-System-launch-concept-photo-and-info-Kennedy-Space-Center/261323855772?_trksid=p2045573.m2042&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D18580%26meid%3D2799227052911818902%26pid%3D100033%26prg%3D8476%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D3%26sd%3D131049318582%26
 

Attachments

  • $(KGrHqRHJDoFHi2neBgJBR5K2H0Fmg~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqRHJDoFHi2neBgJBR5K2H0Fmg~~60_57.JPG
    183.9 KB · Views: 34
  • $(KGrHqQOKo0FH,d4zjjMBR5K2RYhZQ~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqQOKo0FH,d4zjjMBR5K2RYhZQ~~60_57.JPG
    259.8 KB · Views: 37
Update Space Launch System
Wind tunnels tests and different nose cones for the boosters.http://youtu.be/eC0sQOGYGlQ
Code:
http://youtu.be/eC0sQOGYGlQ
 
"NASA finalizes contract to build the most powerful rocket ever"
by WJ Hennigan

July 2, 2014

Source:
http://www.latimes.com/business/aerospace/la-fi-nasa-boeing-mars-rocket-20140702-story.html

NASA has reached a milestone in its development of the Space Launch System, or SLS, which is set to be the most powerful rocket ever and may one day take astronauts to Mars.

After completing a critical design review, Boeing Co. has finalized a $2.8-billion contract with the space agency. The deal allows full production on the rocket to begin.

“Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS – the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time,” Virginia Barnes, Boeing's Space Launch System vice president and program manager, said in a statement.

The last time NASA’s completed a critical design review of a deep-space human rocket was 1961, when the space agency assessed the mighty Saturn V, which ultimately took man to the moon.

Work on the 321-foot Space Launch System is spread throughout Southern California, including Boeing's avionics team in Huntington Beach. The rocket’s core stage will get its power from four RS-25 engines for former space shuttle main engines built by Aerojet Rocketdyne of Canoga Park.
The rocket will carry the Orion spacecraft, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., which can carry up to four astronauts beyond low Earth orbit on long-duration, deep-space destinations including near-Earth asteroids, the moon, and ultimately Mars.

The rocket, which is designed to carry crew and cargo, is scheduled for its initial test flight from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in 2017.

The first mission will launch an empty Orion spacecraft. The second mission is targeted for 2021 and will launch Orion and a crew of up to four NASA astronauts.

The rocket's initial flight-test configuration will provide a 77-ton lift capacity. The final evolved two-stage configuration will be able to lift more than 143 tons.
 
ynuv5tpvl3uarb0lpv5p.jpg

[IMAGE CREDIT: NASA/Rad Sinyak]
http://gizmodo.com/5921476/orion-capsulesay-hello-to-the-future-of-manned-space-flight/1631966754/+andrewtarantola​
 
083cf78d-9af4-494a-8da5-f7aeec480065-big.jpg

ORIGINAL CAPTION:
NASA's Orion spacecraft, preparing for it's first flight, departs the Neil Armstrong Operations and Checkout Building on its way to the Payload Hazardous Servicing Facility at the Kennedy Space Center, Thursday, Sept. 11, 2014, in Cape Canaveral, Fla. Orion is scheduled for a test flight in early December. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SCI_NASA_ORION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Another AP photo below via the Japan News:​
 

Attachments

  • Orionmove.jpg
    Orionmove.jpg
    92.1 KB · Views: 162
One giant step backwards for Mankind.

Nice work, government-NASA -- just keep tossing my tax dollars into the ocean, after a one-time use, as you always have.

My money is on SpaceX and Blue Origin, thank you very much.

David
 
NASA probably learned their lesson with the shuttle, that reusability isn't all it's cracked up to be.

They need a shuttle replacement anyways, why not make it better than the shuttle, in terms of payload?
 
Unless I'm mistaken, the Orion will be refurbished and used again, up to 10 missions per vehicle.
 
circle-5 said:
Unless I'm mistaken, the Orion will be refurbished and used again, up to 10 missions per vehicle.

So the tin can up top comes back and the other 98% goes in the ocean? Are they planning on reusing the solid motors?
 
sferrin said:
So the tin can up top comes back and the other 98% goes in the ocean? Are they planning on reusing the solid motors?

Wikipedia says that blocks 1 and 1B will not recover the solids. Not sure about block 2, it seems that they're still trying to decide on solids vs liquids. If they decide on liquids, I doubt those will be recovered.
 
The principle killer of the Shuttle was the real-world operating costs -- too much old-technology being serviced by a labor-force pulling down today's paycheck. As to Orion: How cost effective will a saltwater landed, 'reusable' capsule be against a capsule that is pinpoint landed on dry land, feet away from a post-mission van and transporter-erector?

I see a cartoon depiction of the Delta-4 lofting this government ode to future-past and all I can think is: Falcon-heavy.

Orion is not money well spent. It's a government space infrastructure jobs program. Money better spent engaging the American private sector. Government, and it's tit sucking contractores: GET THE HELL OUT OF MUSK's WAY! Stop being the problem here.

NASA invented the wheel. Fine. Now, get out of the way and let private industry work up spokes, hubs, and girl-catching rims. NASA was a unique and powerful inovator and mover of technology once. Those days are over.

And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

... secure from Rant.

David
 
merriman said:
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?
 
sferrin said:
merriman said:
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David
 
merriman said:
sferrin said:
merriman said:
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David

Which isn't what we're talking about of course. Now how about answering the question. Has any SPACE LAUNCHER ever shut down it's liquid engines in flight and the astronauts escaped?
 
merriman said:
As to Orion: How cost effective will a saltwater landed, 'reusable' capsule be against a capsule that is pinpoint landed on dry land, feet away from a post-mission van and transporter-erector?

True, however parachute-on-water landings are an extremely reliable way to get home. Take a look at Apollo 15. One way to describe is is that 33 percent of its landing mechanisms failed, and it still landed successfully! Which shows the reliability and redundancy of it.

640px-Apollo_15_descends_to_splashdown.jpg
 
antiquark said:
They need a shuttle replacement anyways, why not make it better than the shuttle, in terms of payload?

Ah, but what defines "better?" There are no funded programs that require *more* payload than the Shuttle could have provided. Sure, manned missions to the moon and beyond would require bigger payloads... but we have *NO* manned missions to the moon and beyond, except for a bit to study an asteroid rendezvous mission.

Building a bigger rocket is kinda like building an aircraft carrier designed to carrying and launch aircraft the size of the B-1, working on the assumption that once your ship is finished someone else will pay for B-1-sized carrier aircraft.
 
gai3e5awt7dpj0rkctzo.jpg

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/largest-welding-machine-will-make-the-largest-rocket-in-1634098076​
 
sferrin said:
merriman said:
sferrin said:
merriman said:
And never again permit human flesh to ride in close proximity to solid fueled, never can be stopped, firecrackers.

Has there ever been an instance of a liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of it's engines in flight and the astronauts escaping?

Yes.

Just about any X-plane project (that hit the magic altitude mark) that employed a liquid rocket engine as the prim mover.

David

Which isn't what we're talking about of course. Now how about answering the question. Has any SPACE LAUNCHER ever shut down it's liquid engines in flight and the astronauts escaped?

And, mid-argument, you change the question. Having lost the first point, you fine tune the discussion to, 'space launcher'. Not a parameter of your initial question.

Enough fencing.

Liquids are safer than solids. The point you are so desperate to avoid. So, I'll say it for you.

David
 
Orionblamblam said:
Ah, but what defines "better?" There are no funded programs that require *more* payload than the Shuttle could have provided.

No funded missions yet (seems like putting the cart before the horse IMHO), but take a look at this pdf to see what the SLS enables (google search):

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sls_mission_booklet_jan_2014.pdf

For example:
"SLS delivers the Interstellar Explorer
spacecraft to 200 AU in 15 years
saving 15 years of flight time from
original design concepts."
 
merriman said:
And, mid-argument, you change the question. Having lost the first point, you fine tune the discussion to, 'space launcher'. Not a parameter of your initial question.

Since the topic of discussion was space launchers I thought it was obvious. Will note to self that you're not exactly swift on the uptake to avoid confusing you in the future.

merriman said:
Liquids are safer than solids. The point you are so desperate to avoid. So, I'll say it for you.

"Desperate"? Hardly. Just don't buy into the "liquid motors are safer" BS. There's a reason why the Navy doesn't allow liquid-fueled missiles on it's ships and it isn't because they're safer.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom