NASA Space Launch System (SLS)

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?

No. There has not been an instance of a manned liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of its engines in flight, period (not counting Challenger).

On Soyuz T-10-1 the launch escape system fired at T-70 seconds after a fire had started on the rocket. Two seconds before the rocket exploded, the LES yanked the crew to safety.
On the N-1 L5 unmanned mission, the LES was also used successfully after a catastrophic failure in the first stage.
 
Hobbes 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?

No. There has not been an instance of a manned liquid fueled rocket shutting down all of its engines in flight, period (not counting Challenger).


Soyuz 18a?
 
blackstar said:
carmelo said:

That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.
That's a bit of a stretch, the SLS mission planners aren't mooching neighbors. This is your accountant saying "here's how cool a car you can buy, if you're willing to make the payments." Sure, you're going to end up buying the cheap subcompact with decent mileage instead of the luxury hyrbid because there's other stuff you want to spend money on, but it's no knock against the accountant to lay out the numbers.
 
Moose said:
blackstar said:
carmelo said:

That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.
That's a bit of a stretch, the SLS mission planners aren't mooching neighbors. This is your accountant saying "here's how cool a car you can buy, if you're willing to make the payments." Sure, you're going to end up buying the cheap subcompact with decent mileage instead of the luxury hyrbid because there's other stuff you want to spend money on, but it's no knock against the accountant to lay out the numbers.

Except that in your example the accountant is a neutral party. But in this case it is the rocket builders who are pitching this stuff. They benefit if somebody else spends money. They're not disinterested in the outcome.

Understanding that is important to understanding why this is unlikely to happen for Europa Clipper, and WON'T happen for Mars sample return. That MSR concept that they lay out would probably cost $6-8 billion to build. The Planetary Science Division cannot afford it because it would use up all of their money for an entire decade.
 
http://space.io9.com/the-orion-spacecraft-is-at-the-launch-pad-and-strapped-1658202641/+katharinetrendacosta

tcgocsjmsxsa2qkz8jwg.jpg
 
Published on Dec 2, 2014

World’s biggest rocket. How would you feel about going to Mars? Or maybe an asteroid? Take a ride on the new SLS built by Boeing and ignite your human spirit. Learn more about how Boeing innovates at http://buildsomethingbetter.com

http://youtu.be/vx1KTmdNW9I
 
Published on Dec 3, 2014

NASA is setting its eyes on the exploration of Mars, an over two year-long journey that will make history. Today's children will be the first explorers of our neighboring planet with help from Boeing. The current development of Boeing's advanced module technology will make possible a safe excursion for astronauts to Mars to discover ground humans have yet to see. Learn more about the path to Mars at buildsomethingbetter.com.

http://youtu.be/vdqhGhfX62Y
 
Interesting, the two Videos mention Solar electric Tugs for Mars Missions
 
Yes Solar Electric Propulsion is becoming higher and higher profile in the Mars planning at NASA according to the people who know such things at Nasaspaceflight.com's forums, and Boeing is pushing SEP hard on its end. For all the ailing and gnashing of teeth about the asteroid mission, its use of a sophisticated SEP tug to retrieve the rock is something that would be a big positive contribution to a future Mars exploration architecture using SEP.
 
Moose said:
Yes Solar Electric Propulsion is becoming higher and higher profile in the Mars planning at NASA according to the people who know such things at Nasaspaceflight.com's forums, and Boeing is pushing SEP hard on its end. For all the ailing and gnashing of teeth about the asteroid mission, its use of a sophisticated SEP tug to retrieve the rock is something that would be a big positive contribution to a future Mars exploration architecture using SEP.

One of the criticisms of the asteroid mission is that there is very little tech that it develops that ultimately carries over to a human Mars mission. The SEP is pretty much the only tech that has a somewhat direct line to a Mars mission. The big baggie for catching the asteroid has none, and that's going to be expensive, as will the control software and systems for the spacecraft, also not needed for Mars.

But the ARM is going to get canceled anyway. It's pretty much inevitable.
 
http://www.space.com/27973-nasa-space-launch-system-megarocket-2018.html?cmpid=514648
 
blackstar said:
carmelo said:

HA! I love it...

Best summation of the actual state of affairs I've read...

Later! OL JR :)
That's a misleading article because it is all written from the point of view of the guys trying to sell the rocket, not the people who would actually have to pay for the payloads. It is sort of like your neighbor planning for you to install a pool and he offers to bring the beer when it's finished.
 
Casting ATK's solid's 3.5 million pounds of thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0BgLPq6PkE&feature=youtu.be
 
bobbymike said:
Casting ATK's solid's 3.5 million pounds of thrust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0BgLPq6PkE&feature=youtu.be

It's more impressive when that controlled thrust turns into instantaneous bang.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KuGizBjDXo

If SLS ever makes it to actual launch I will have to take the 3 hour drive to watch. I would like to hear and feel what 7-8 million pounds of thrust is like.
 
"New name for Space Launch System gets backing of lawmakers"
Posted on May 3, 2015 by Stephen Clark

Source:
http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/05/03/new-name-for-space-launch-system-gets-backing-of-lawmakers/

push to give NASA’s Space Launch System a new name is garnering support from lawmakers, who have written into legislation provisions that would order NASA to rename the heavy-lift rocket through a competition among schoolchildren.

If passed into law, the bill would set policy for NASA and includes budget guidelines that would shuffle funding from the agency’s Earth science programs into other areas, primarily the Space Launch System, Orion crew capsule and robotic exploration of the solar system.

The House Science Committee passed the NASA Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017 on Thursday. The bill now goes to the full House for a vote.

The Senate has not yet considered its own version of a NASA authorization act.

Language in the authorization bill would direct NASA to “conduct a well-publicized competition among students in elementary and secondary schools to name the elements of the administration’s exploration program.”

NASA should give a name to the agency’s entire exploration program, including the SLS, Orion spacecraft and future missions. The bill also directs NASA to rename the SLS itself.

An identical section was included in a previous version of an authorization bill that passed the House in February, and NASA officials have had internal discussions of renaming the Space Launch System.

NASA announced Orion as the name of the crew transport capsule in 2006, when it was part of the Constellation program aimed at returning humans to the moon.

The Obama administration canceled the behind-schedule Constellation program in 2010, and refocused NASA on partnering with commercial space companies to carry astronauts to the International Space Station.

The Orion capsule survived the cancellation and emerged as a component of NASA’s new exploration program with the Space Launch System aimed at eventually taking humans to Mars.

Propelled by a pair of solid rocket boosters, four space shuttle-era rocket engines and an upper stage derived from the Delta 4 launcher, the first version of the Space Launch System will stand 321 feet tall and blast off from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The SLS will produce 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff — more power than any launcher since the Soviet Union’s ill-fated N1 moon rocket

Its first test flight is scheduled for 2018, when it will dispatch an uncrewed Orion capsule on a 25-day mission to lunar orbit and back to Earth. A flight around the moon with astronauts is scheduled to follow in 2021.
 
"NASA nears milestone approval for its new Space Launch System"
By Lee Roop | lroop@al.com

Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on July 23, 2015 at 4:05 PM, updated July 24, 2015 at 9:21 AM

Source:
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/07/nasa_nears_milestone_approval.html


NASA's Space Launch System – the agency's first new deep-space rocket in 40 years - is nearing a critical milestone on its way to a first launch in 2018. The rocket's critical design review team has completed an 11-week-long review at Huntsville's Marshall Space Flight Center of the system's design and development.

Thirteen teams, including representatives from other NASA field centers, reviewed more than 1,000 files as part the critical design review. Still to come is a pass of that review by an independent board and briefings for Marshall leaders and NASA leaders in Washington. If final CDR approval comes by the end of September, as expected, NASA will move forward on full-scale building of the rocket. It is already building parts.

'Exciting time for NASA, nation'

"Critical design review represents a major commitment by the agency to human exploration," SLS program manager Todd May said in a statement, "and through these reviews, we ensure the SLS design is on track to being a safe, sustainable and evolvable launch vehicle that will meet the agency's goals and missions.

"It's an exciting time for NASA and our nation," May continued, "as we prepare to go to places in deep space that we've never been before."

The design being reviewed is for the first of three versions of SLS known as SLS Block 1. It will be 322 feet tall, weigh 5.5 million pounds and have 8.4 million pounds of thrust at liftoff. It will be able to carry 70 metric tons – 154, 000 pounds – of cargo.

The system's first mission is to launch an uncrewed Orion spacecraft in what will be the first test of the rocket-spacecraft system before a crew climbs aboard. That first launch is targeted for 2018.

Independent review comes next

The review team has turned its work over to the independent Standing Review Board. That board can confirm or reject the team's findings.

"Much of the benefit of this review is what we do to prepare for it because that's where we really bring things out," Jim Reuter, head of the Standing Review Board, said today. "And you can tell it in the spirit of the people here. They are excited about what they're doing. They can see that this is the review that's going to make it real."

The Orion spacecraft program and the Ground Systems Development Office at Kennedy Space Center in Florida face similar reviews this year. After they're done, NASA will set a date for the first launch called Exploration Mission-1 or EM-1.

"We've nailed our review schedules," said Garry Lyles, chief engineer for the SLS Program Office at the Marshall Center. "The team is performing at a really high level. And I'm unbelievably positive in the structural robustness of this vehicle; it has tremendous performance. We've picked the right vehicle for the journey to Mars."
 
Thanks to Orionblamblam for the original heads up:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34275758

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/09/17/human_retreat_from_deep_space_will_extend_until_2023_nasa_orion_podule_delay/
 
final_cone_weld_for_em1_1.jpg

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Six_Orion_Milestones_to_Track_in_2016_999.html​
 
The electrons are free, there's no separate Orion thread, and these two subjects can live together here in perfect harmony, like peanut butter and chocolate, Shields and Yarnell, Bert and Ernie.
 
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/01/payload-concerns-high-costs-and-competiton-cloud-future-of-nasa-rocket/
 
So, NASA comes up with a way of tossing perfectly good engines into the ocean. Works Project for GS-20's. Nice. My tax dollars at work. I don't see SLS moving the ball forward much (space fairing Nation wise).

Thank God for the Jim Barns' of the world. With them we have a chance of getting off this dirt-ball, in mass. They'll do it better than NASA, and at the same time making money as they do it -- not sucking tax dollars for outdated, inefficient lifters only good for for one-way trips.

The ESA, Russia and the other players are reluctantly looking seriously at the paradigm shift -- some have initiated programs. When's NASA going to wake up? I don't accept our Shuttle system as an efficient representation of re-usable hardware.

IF Musk and Bezos can keep their refurbishment costs low enough, and they can get reasonable cycle-life out of their lifters, then it seems propulsive landing of vehicles is the best means of re-use.

Falcon-heavy and the SLS are in the same class, right? If not, BFR is only a few years away. I suggest we hang fire on the SLS and leave those warehoused SSME's be. We've demonstrated that solids and humans don't mix. What the hell are we doing?

David
 
merriman said:
Falcon-heavy and the SLS are in the same class, right? If not, BFR is only a few years away. I suggest we hang fire on the SLS and leave those warehoused SSME's be. We've demonstrated that solids and humans don't mix. What the hell are we doing?

David

Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS. Solids and humans don't mix? Uhm, wut?
 
There was a lot more to that accident than the type of booster, and had the STS been equipped with a launch escape system the tragedy might have been greatly reduced. Orion is being designed with a LAS, as are the commercial vehicles for that matter.
 
Yes. 1986.

Does time attenuate fact? Are you suggesting that The Great Chicago Fire is, today, not so 'great' because it happened so, so long ago?

David
 
sferrin said:
Falcon Heavy is only about 1/2 - 1/3 of an SLS.

SLS is only going to be about 70 metric tonnes (Block I), unless lots of expensive upgrades are funded for continued block development; like Block IB's EUS, which would bring it up to 105~ mt.

FH initially was about 50 mt, but some rumors indicate it may be now 60 mt after various upgrades over the years to the F9 cores (v1.0 to 1.1 to Full Thrust).

Falcon Heavy might cost $100-150 million to launch (who knows at this point); while SLS conservatively would cost between $500m and $1B to launch.

At this point, things are starting to swing to SpaceX, as they've done things thought "impossible", like recovering a spent first stage via retropulsive flyback; so their "believability quotient" has gone up versus what it was when they initially started Falcon Heavy.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom