NASA's Space Launch System: DOA?

[Crisp]

why would it cost so much? where is the money going? if Zubrin can lay out a $600 million mission to Mars with existing hardware, why does a new rocket system cost $60 billion?

eBay fees are a joke.

[neoadorable]

funny scrisp, funny, the future of mankind is a big joke to you isn't it :angry:

[HSoft]

@ Spudtrooper -

Read the thread. I was responding to Unix2 inserting "republican" in this,not espousing beyond the FACT that politicians on BOTH SIDES are pushing a bad program; SLS. Hell, I'm as ticked at Sen. Shelby (R-Ga) as I am Sen. Nelson (D-Fla).

Slight correction there. Senator Richard Shelby is R-Al, not R-Ga. The reason he's pushing for it is that Obama's cuts in the space program are having a devastating effect on Huntsville, AL.

I personally think it's wrong what he's doing but I can see why he's doing it.

[jebus197]

So anyway, nice: http://bbc.dracos.co.uk/?page=/news/science-environment-14915725

I like big ass old rockets I have to say. The bigger the better indeed.

The only thing I don't get is that it 'reuses' the shuttle's main engines', except that none of this thing is reusable. (Except maybe the SRB's). It seems awfully wasteful just to dump the whole lot in the sea.

Will it just use existing tooling facilities to make these engines and then dump them when they are done? Why stick with this engine design? Surely there are better alternatives around?

[DocM]

This is the Space Launch System I posted about in another thread.

It's another boondoggle whose main purpose is to serve the political interests of Senators and Congressmen in both parties. It's based on the Ares V that was part of the canceled Constellation program. That got the axe because it was draing NASA's budget dry with little to show for it.

Now these interests are trying to reconstitute Constellation one piece at a time under different names: Ares V become SLS; the Orion spacecraft becomes MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle); Ares I becomes the Liberty crew launcher, etc.

S.S.D.D.

The liquid engines are throw-away (!!) versions of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), one of the most expensive engines ever built, but those are still in development. For test flights they will use what I think should be museum pieces; the SSME's removed from the retired Space Shuttles. Yup - they'll end up in the drink.

The solids to be used for test flights are longer versions the Shuttle SRB's, toxin generating fuel and all (hydrochloric acid vapors, particulate potassium chlorate (recently deemed by EPA to be a ground water hazard), burned rubber particulates etc.) Later there'll be a competition for a permanent solution, probably between the SRB's and 2-3 liquid fueled versions.

The second stage engine, the J-2X, is a so-called "evolved" version of the Saturn V's J2 upper stage engine, but there's a problem; it's 2x as heavy, costs much more to build and therefore won't be as efficient or lift as much as the original.

Making matters worse is that SpaceX is developing a 2nd stage engine called Raptor that's cheaper and runs circles around J-2X performance wise, but NASA didn't consider it.

Also; the budget for SLS will only allow for a launch every year or so, so between 2017 (if it's on time) and 2030 it may only fly 12 times. NO money for payloads, not even for a lander once they get where ever it'll go. Not even for a habitat to live in during the trip.

For what it will cost you could fly an armada of Falcon Heavy's, Atlas V's and Delta IV Heavy's and still have money for neat payloads to spare.

Sites where space pros hang out are calling it "The Rocket To Nowhere"

[jebus197]

This is the Space Launch System I posted about in another thread.

It's another boondoggle.

The liquid engines are throw-away versions of the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), one of the most expensive engines ever built, but those are still in development. For test flights they will use what I think should be museum pieces; the SSME's removed from the retired Space Shuttles. Yup - they'll end up in the drink.

The solids to be used for test flights are longer versions the Shuttle SRB's, toxin generating fuel and all (hydrochloric acid vapors, particulate potassium chlorate (recently deemed by EPA to be a ground water hazard), burned rubber particulates etc.) Later there'll be a competition for a permanent solution, probably between the SRB's and 2-3 liquid fueled versions.

The second stage engine, the J-2X, is a so-called "evolved" version of the Saturn V's J2 upper stage engine, but there's a problem; it's 2x as heavy, costs much more to build and therefore won't be as efficient or lift as much as the original.

Making matters worse is that SpaceX is developing a 2nd stage engine called Raptor that's cheaper and runs circles around J-2X performance wise, but NASA didn't consider it.

Also; the budget for SLS will only allow for a launch every year or so, so between 2017 (if it's on time) and 2030 it may only fly 12 times. NO money for payloads, not efen for a lander once they get where ever it'll go. Not even for a habitat to live in during the trip.

For what it will cost you could fly an armada of Falcon Heavy's, Atlas V's and Delta IV Heavy's and still have money for neat payloads to spare.

It says in that article that it will be able to put up to 70 tones in orbit. What can the others you mentioned carry? What are the numbers comparison for the upper stage? Why on earth would NASA chose a stage like this if it was less efficient than the original? I don't really always dig your sometimes seemingly very apparent enthusiasm for letting private industry do everything, as none of these other systems have been proven yet, and none have the same track record as NASA in putting together successful missions. You can't just toss 60 years experience and expertise away over night. However, I do think this is an odd one. There doesn't seem to be a lot of point to it ATM. You throw a bunch of quite old stuff together, with no mission plan of what to do with it when it's built, use a bunch of old technology and old engines too, when newer more efficient engines should certainly be possible, then just dump this whole massively expensive thing in the sea when you're done. You kind of get the impression that this is a political white elephant already - and that it's just there purely for the sake of jobs. I will be very surprised if they ever actually use it to go anywhere.

[Eric Veteran]

[Threads merged]

[DocM]

@jebus197

The following launchers are in the pipeline -

SpaceX Falcon Heavy: 53 mt (2013, ships to Vandenberg Q4 2012)

SpaceX Falcon Heavy-H (Raptor upper): 70 mt (~2015)

SpaceX Falcon X: 100+ mt (3 years from NASA order)

Atlas V Heavy: 29.4 metric tons (available)

Atlas V Phase Ii: 70 metric tons (components exist)

Raptor vs. J-2X -

Raptor thrust (vacuum): 150,000 lbf

J-2X thrust (vacuum): 200,000 lbf)

Raptor specific impulse: 470

J-2X specific impulse: 430-ish

J-2X would need a specific impulse >448 to overcome Raptors advantage, even with its greater thrust. Its (far) greater weight and fuel consumption are its weaknesses.

NBC's Cosmic Log has posted their article -

Big questions about big rockets

NASA, the White House and congressional leaders say they're happy about?a big new rocket design?for going beyond Earth orbit, but many observers of the commercial space industry are already wondering whether this $35 billion trip is necessary.

They?worry that?the?newly announced Space Launch System, or SLS,?will soak up too much of NASA?s budget and preclude the development of next-generation technologies such as on-orbit refueling stations?for outbound spacecraft. A different approach might not require the decade-long development of a super-rocket, and still open the way for journeys to Mars well before the 2030-2040 time frame laid out in NASA's current plan for future spaceflight.

These critics say the program?satisfies the?mandates and timetables specified by jobs-conscious members of Congress, but may not satisfy America's long-term aspirations in outer space. They fear that?a lengthy, expensive?development program could be canceled by a future administration, just as NASA's Constellation back-to-the-moon program was canceled by the Obama White House.

"This has got to be stopped," said Charles Lurio, an independent space consultant who publishes The Lurio Report. "This is insanity."

Lurio is?one of the more caustic critics of the big-rocket approach to human spaceflight. He has joked that the SLS and its crew-carrying Orion capsule, also known as the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle or MPCV, should be renamed the "Senate Launch System" and the ?Missing-purpose Crew Vehicle.? But he's not alone. Here?are some of the questions being raised about the road ahead:

RLV and Space Transport News' Clark Lindsey says NASA should have gone through "a competitive process for determining the best options for a deep-space exploration program. ... If after a competitive process, NASA was nevertheless forced to go with a sub-optimal architecture because of congressional directives, this at least would have been obvious to everyone."

Behind the Black's Robert Zimmerman lists five previous NASA spaceflight initiatives that ended up going nowhere, at a cost of billions upon billions of dollars. "To be really blunt, this new rocket, like all its predecessors, will never fly either," he writes. "It costs too much, will take too long to build, and will certainly be canceled by a future administration before it is finished."

Eleven Point Two's Paul Wren notes that the SLS is projected to be ready to launch 70-metric-ton payloads by 2017, at an estimated cost of $18 billion. (Billions more would?be spent to prepare for manned flights starting in 2021 or so.) Meanwhile, SpaceX is projected to be ready to launch 53-ton payloads on its Falcon Heavy rocket by 2012, with each launch expected to cost between $80 million and $125 million. "So why are we gutting the rest of NASA's dwindling budget to fund the SLS?" Wren asks.

Popular Mechanics contributor Rand Simberg doesn't think SLS will face smooth sailing through Congress, particularly if SpaceX comes through with its Falcon Heavy and the fuel-depot concept gains traction. "Without a course correction, SLS could already be on the way to cancellation, like Constellation before it," he writes.

SpaceRef's Keith Cowing says that "what is still lacking in this whole story is exactly what NASA will do with this big rocket. Missions to asteroids, Mars, etc., are often tossed out by NASA representatives ? but no timeline whatsoever has yet to be presented, not even a 'notional' one."

If there is a debate over the go/no-go decision on the SLS, it will probably fall along these lines:?Could commercial space providers such as SpaceX, or the Boeing Co., or Lockheed Martin, come up with cheaper, faster, more innovative ways to send astronauts into deep space? Or is the SLS plan, which relies on updated versions of components from past space programs,?the surer way to go?

"It's not fair to say this is really a rocket built from shuttle parts," said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations. "This is really these components used in a new and novel way."

NASA's big-rocket plan is likely to get high-profile endorsements next week during a House committee?hearing featuring the first and last man to walk on the moon (Apollo 11's Neil Armstrong and Apollo 17's Gene Cernan) as well as former NASA chief Mike Griffin. It sounds as if NASA officials, White House budgeteers and congressional leaders are all?on board. Is this the most realistic plan for going beyond Earth orbit? Realistic or not, is it a fait accompli? What do you think?

[DocM]

Just got some numbers comparing J-2X, Raptor and the standard Falcon Heavy 2nd stages lofted from a generic 1st stage. Cuts through the technobabble and gives a direct comparison.

Raptor (hydrogen): 70 mt

J-2X (hydrogen): 64.5 mt

Merlin 1DVAC (kerosene): 45.35 mt

There's also a difference in throttleability; Raptor can throttle from 50% to 100% (continuous) while J-2X can only do either 82% or 100% (non-continuous).

[neoadorable]

i don't know if i share in this sentiment, if it's another way to get us to space, this is good. if it gets in the way of getting us to space, then it's not good. but there's a fine line somewhere there, isn't there?

[DocM]

Look at it this way; if they're lucky it'll fly in 2017, but no one is expecting that. AT BEST they can only afford to fly it 10-12 times before 2030. For the same amount of money you could launch an order of magnitude larger mass using Falcon Heavy, Atlas V Heavy etc. and they'll flying years sooner.