NASA unveils giant rocket

[liberal N proud]

The design for NASA's newest behemoth of a rocket hearkens back to the giant workhorse liquid rockets that propelled men to the moon. But this time the destinations will be much farther and the rocket even more powerful.

The Obama administration on Wednesday unveiled its much-delayed general plans for its rocket design, called the Space Launch System, which will cost about $35 billion. It will begin unmanned test flights in six years, and carry astronauts in a capsule on top in a decade.

"This is a great day for NASA and the nation," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said at a U.S. Senate news conference called to unveil the concept.

Two of the senators who worked with NASA and the White House on the plan, Florida Democrat Bill Nelson and Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, said they were pleased by the plan and signaled that Congress would give its assent.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44517102/?GT1=43001


As Karl Sagan would say... Billions and billions!

[AngryAmish]

1. Why is it taking so long?

Six years to build the thing? This is a rather mature technology.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Aside from the paint job, I'm wondering how different it is from the cancelled Ares V./

I suspect they're re-purposing a lot of the work already done into this, otherwise it would take longer.

[AngryAmish]

19. The redesign could not be that hard

Put the pointy end on top, and the fiery part on the bottom...

[Warren DeMontague]

23. building a man-rated rocket isn't easy

6 years is pretty soon, considering.

[sudopod]

61. I mean, it's just rocket science. nt

[astral]

66. snicker

[MicaelS]

35. Couple of differences..

(1) Ares V was cargo only, not planned to be man-rated. This the big difference.

(2) Ares V had strap on solid boosters for all launches. SLS will use them for testing purposes, then will go pure liquid fuels.

[pokerfan]

39. no strap on solids for one difference

despite the image in the initial release.

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. That's more than 154,000 pounds, or 77 tons, roughly the weight of 40 sport utility vehicles. The lift capacity will be evolvable to 130 metric tons -- more than 286,000 pounds, or 143 tons -- enough to lift 75 SUVs. The first developmental flight, or mission, is targeted for the end of 2017.

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

[eppur_se_muova]

53. Are we that desperate to get rid of SUVs?

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

59. Interesting.

Gotcha. I wonder why they would get rid of them? Seems like (Challenger notwithstanding) they have a pretty good track record.

[pokerfan]

63. Safety reasons despite that track record

Their biggest problem is that once lit, they can't be shut down or even throttled and when they do fail, they tend to detonate rather spectacularly. I recall their use on the Shuttle being controversial at the time and there have been SRB failures on Titan and Delta. I crossed my fingers every time the shuttle flew. It didn't help that the orbiter was strapped alongside the SRBs instead of above as it is with this new design.

[Posteritatis]

56. Well, in this case it actually *is* rocket science..

Levity aside, they have to put hugely more effort into making sure a crewed vehicle is as safe as possible. Covering all the bases, or at least as many as can reasonably be covered, slows design down.

[pokerfan]

65. reminds me of a far side

90% might be an acceptable success rate for cargo missions but crewed missions need to be in excess of 99%. It should be noted that while the shuttle, with its two failures (out of 134) is not terribly far off the acceptable rate, it is galling that both of the failures can be traced back to the decision to strap the orbiter to the side of a cryogenic tank and a pair of solid boosters instead of the (relative) safety at the top of a stack. :banghead:

[sudopod]

60. We've spent 180 billion making a backup engine for the F-35 that we'll never use.

This thing has been living on a budget in the single billions, and is going to go to Mars.

If it ever flies I'll be damn impressed.

[Kolesar]

2. There is that "Mars mission" again

Why do we need to send people to Mars?
This is just a jobs program for Florida and Texas and the weapons industry.

[liberal N proud]

3. Better spending weapons money on this than more bombs and tanks

Just my thoughts.

I don't know why anyone would want to go to a planet we know we can't live on. :shrug:

[EOTE]

5. We can't live on it now.

With terraforming, who knows what is possible. Also, it's far more about just seeking out a place where future generations can live. It's about learning about the origins of the planet and more about the origins of our own. There's incredibly valuable information that can be learned by travelling to other planets. It's also the first step toward getting even further from Earth. There's so much more the space program can teach us and give to humanity.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Because exploration and learning are hard-wired human imperatives.

And probably more than any other thing, I hope I see a human being walk on Mars before I die.

[Johonny]

18. we are already doing it

Just with the aide of machines and not humans directly. But I agree humans seem to need to explore and we are exploring. Will 35 billion to manned mars mission vehicle increase exploration or suck money from our actual ongoing exploration? That has always been the worry/problem.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Good question. I agree, too.

What many people don't realize is that we've learned 100X more about the solar system and nearby planetary systems in the past 20-30 years than in all of human history previously. Now they're talking about cancelling the James Webb space telescope, the successor to the Hubble. That would be a tragedy.

[Bake]

43. Because it's there.

And because we don't know what's on it. Some things require a HUMAN to see and experience.

Bake

[TheMadMonk]

52. Mars is for the wang waving. Hopefully the lure of the lucre in the Asteroids...

...will put this baby to practical use.

And yes I am fully aware that I just offended a whole lot of people who'd argue that the science potential of a Mars mission is worth pandering to the interests you mention. I'm of that opinion myself. I'm also of the opinion that a number of critical resource shortages can only be addressed in the Asteroids.

For the price of either of the two major post 9/11 wars, tens of thousands of tons of equipment could be placed on the moon or any asteroid of our choice, more than enough to put an entire metals refining industry on the moon and put a few billion tons of the top end of the periodic table in orbit. Platinum group metals, rare earths and even ignoring radioactives, much more.

[sudopod]

62. :/ nt

[baldguy]

64. Old saying: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Right now, all our eggs ARE in one basket - and we have several small groups of crazies busy chewing hold in the bottom of that basket.

[Shagbark Hickory]

4. Sarcasm fail. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Are you still pissed about the 'moon pollution'?

Remember, when you compared the surface of the moon to pristine rainforest?

I wanted to ask you- what do you suppose the rainforest was like before it had trees and ferns and toucans and whatnot? You DO realize that life probably started in the oceans, right?

[Shagbark Hickory]

12. Lets stay on topic.

n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Let's not, and say we did.

It's a question. If you're unable or afraid to answer it, that's your business.

[Shagbark Hickory]

17. Look. I think I'm already on thin ice here...

If you want to go disrupting be my guest. But I'm working hard to improve my behavior here.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I salute you for that.

however, you made a general statement with a whole bunch of sarcasm smileys about NASA that seemed to indicate - what? - that it should be privatized? it shouldn't be privatized? it should go away entirely?

Your previous statements on the topic would lead me to go with the last choice, but it wasn't immediately clear.

let's backtrack and maybe you can clarify the original post. How's that for non-disruptive? :shrug:

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. You don't hear a lot of talk from the retubbies about privatizing nasa.

Usually they are eager to privatize everything.
I believe we should spend less in space exploration. Lets encourage the private sector to do all that. That's the only time you'll hear me say that. It seems to me, space exploration is has a lot to do with energy exploration. Since our government is unfortunately not in the energy business, I don't see why we need to do that at this time.

I used the sarcasm tag too many times and for that I apologize for the inconvenience and edited my reply.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. we're already doing that, actually.. that's part of the plan.

farm out the business of Low Earth Orbit to companies like SpaceX, let NASA focus on deep space exploration.

[Shagbark Hickory]

30. And it was a plan that I was optimistic about seeing as how ...

we could use the same money to try to stimulate the economy.

At least I was optimistic about it until I read this article.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. This will stimulate the economy. Science jobs, manufacturing jobs

These are smart people working on worthwhile, high-tech stuff. Worthwhile stuff that has historically led to further private sector innovations. Worthwhile stuff that isn't going to kill anyone or blow up their houses. Worthwhile stuff that will teach us about the Universe we inhabit.

[Shagbark Hickory]

36. The economy needs a lot more stimulation that this.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Clearly

but that doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. We should repair our bridges, roads, schools, etc. TOO.

[Posteritatis]

55. Reasonably sure this isn't the only bit of spending going on right now. (nt)

[snooper2]

6. Not to be outdone, Snooper2 reveals the

cutest hamster in the world :)

[Johnson20]

7. The boosters look similar to the Shuttle's

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. use proven technology as often as practicable.

Improve it where necessary.
Make leaps rarely, only when necessary.

[Brother Buzz]

16. Those are shuttle boosters

They will be redesigned/replaced down the road

[LongTomH]

67. Yeah, right!

During its initial test flights the rocket will use solid rocket boosters designed for the shuttle strapped on its outside, and will have three shuttle main engines powering it on the inside. But soon after that, the rocket would be built with five main engines, and the solid rocket boosters would be replaced with new-technology boosters that may be either liquid or solid.

We heard this bit about replacing the solids with liquid-fuel boosters time and again during the shuttle program! It never happened! Morton Thiokol has powerful friends in Congress. They kept giving the contracts to Morton-Thiokol, even after the Challenger disaster.

Look gang, I've been following this issue for decades. I organized a chapter of the L-5 Society (Later the National Space Society) in Tulsa in the 1970s. I'm not a fuggin' luddite!.

Back during the days when the Space Shuttle was being designed, some NASA engineers, those with integrity, resigned when they heard that solid rockets would be used on a man-carrying vehicle. They realized the dangers of solid rockets; when you 'light the candle,' the crew has to ride it out until they burn out. Add to that, the dangers represented by segmented solids. I remember the awed expressions on the face of Richard Feynman and other members of the Rogers Commission when a witness explained that the segmented solids used by the military had about a 1 in 35 failure rate.

Those #@!*ing solids were also a major factor in the shuttle's outrageous cost. One estimate I read was that, stacking the solids required about 6.000 man-hours at the Cape. During the time the SRB segments were being stacked, every other activity in the area had to be shut down.

Look, if the US needs heavy lift capacity they can get it from Space-X. Elon Musk has talked about a new generation of heavy-lift vehicles based on an improved version of their Merlin engine.
NASA has explored a Mars mission profile based on the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launcher.

Also, a mission to Mars may not need Saturn-class heavy lift. The MarsDrive organization is working on versions of Robert Zubrin's Mars Direct concept that can be carried out with smaller launchers.

[joshcryer]

72. Don't forget, SRBs are used in military, by having SRBs for this rocket, they're subsidizing the...

...military.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. EXCELLENT. More than anything else, NASA needs heavy lift capability.

About time.


:woohoo: :applause: :woohoo:

[LongTomH]

70. No, See my post above!

[Major Hogwash]

15. Where are they going?

And why aren't these programs "pay as you go" programs like Ryan wants them to be?

[Warren DeMontague]

21. A Trillion for the Military, $200 Billion + for the drug war & incarceration

NASA gets 5 cents and immediately the bleating and whining begins.

[Major Hogwash]

24. No clue, huh?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I fully realize that science isnt as much fun as blowing people up

or watching cancer grannies get dragged off by SWAT teams on "Cops"

[Major Hogwash]

31. You don't have an answer to my question, do ya?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Which question: "where are they going?"

Nearby asteroids. Back to the Moon. Mars. Eventually, perhaps, the moons of Jupiter or even Saturn.
Might be possible to set up an orbiting presence around Venus. Very interesting things happening in the upper cloud layers, there.

For starts.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Holy fucking shit!!!

My black jet rocket post got vaporized!

Man, people around here have no sense of humor at all anymore.

[zappaman]

42. or maybe you don't have a sense of humor

and you just don't know it.
+1 for space exploration.
-1 for people who think it's a waste of time.

[Major Hogwash]

54. Sure I do

This forum is a complete joke.

[zappaman]

57. maybe your time would be better spent elsewhere

where your marvelous sense of humor can be appreciated.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Multiple prior similar posts

[liberal N proud]

49. This isn't LBN

Although the article was released today!

[hatrack]

28. Now, if they were unveiling a Giant Robot . . .

That would be really cool!

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire Walk With Me]

46. Giant Robot = Very Cool. Giant Unmanned Lifter = Sorta Cool.

You'd think they've have learned this by now.

A giant unmanned lifter wouldn't scare Kim Jong Il nearly as much. Or bellow "Pyongyang is mine" in a huge metallic voice. Well maybe the lifter can do the bellow thing if it's retrofitted but =I= wouldn't be afraid. Probably because I don't live in Pyongyang.

[zappaman]

47. that robot is useless without johnny socko. n/t

[Fire Walk With Me]

50. Giant Robot technology has advanced since the 70s.

[Blue_Tires]

37. how does it compare in size to the old Saturn V?

[freethought]

38. Judging from the pic

If you lose the two side boosters, what you have left looks like a cleaner Saturn V rocket, just like those used in the Apollo missions.
This is guess, but it seems perfectly logical that NASA would consider dusting off the design specs to the Saturn rocket and simply upgrade them with present-day technology. A 21st century version of the 1960s version of the Saturn V. The Saturn rocket was no small thing, even by today's standards. Probably the most powerful moving machine ever built to this day.

[liberal N proud]

48. I remember hearing a few years ago, they don't have much in plans from Saturn

Besides, the technology has changes so much, it pretty much a ground up design.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. Thing is with the Saturn V, it was incredibly complex and expensive to make.

Each one was like a custom-built Lamborghini... what we need now is more like something that can come off an assembly line.

And unfortunately, a lot of the extremely complex knowledge and engineering achievements that went into the Saturn V (along with the people who were responsible for them) are gone.

I think what they're doing is taking a few Saturn components; the old J-2 engine, for one, from the Saturn V's 2nd & 3rd stages... But more of the architecture there is related to the Space Shuttle tank and SRBs, which have several decades of cheaper, mass production behind them. That main booster stage is apparently 5 shuttle engines on an extended external tank; not very different from the Ares V concept... looking like the Saturn V probably has more to do with the fact that here (unlike the concepts for the Ares V) they've got the main booster painted white.

[LongTomH]

68. The engines on Saturn V were much simpler than the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

The F1 (1st and 2nd stages) and the J-2 (3rd stage) were simple, low-pressure, open cycle engines, compared to the high-pressure, closed cycle Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs). In an open-cycle engine, the gases used to drive the turbo-pumps that pump fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber are vented overboard, as opposed to a closed cycle engine which vents the turbo-pump gases into the combustion chamber. Pound for pound, the F1 engine was the cheapest large rocket engine in history.

Pound for pound to orbit, Saturn V was the cheapest way to put cargo into orbit. The Space Shuttle was more expensive than Saturn V or other expendable vehicles. The lowest price per pound will be SpaceX's Falcon 9 when the vehicle is in mass production.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. You clearly are better read than me on the topic, and I like to think I'm a space nerd.

My hat is off to you, sir.

It is certainly a shame we lost all that Apollo know-how and production capability, no doubt.

[Brother Buzz]

45. Close: Saturn V 132 tons, Space Shuttle 27 tons, this one - ultimately 143 tons

At first the rockets will be able to lift at least 70 metric tons (77 U.S. tons) of payload, which would include the six-person Orion multipurpose crew vehicle and more. Eventually it will be able to carry at least 130 metric tons (143 U.S. tons) into space, maybe even more. In comparison, the long-dormant Saturn V booster that sent humans to the moon was able to lift 120 metric tons (132 U.S. tons).

[zappaman]

44. yes, but will it make it off our planet?

as we all know, the Earth is under quarantine by an alien race.
the question is...will they let us send this rocket into space?
I, for one, welcome our alien overlords.

[Fire Walk With Me]

51. If we make it past global warming, space is the most important thing

aside from learning to get along with and support each other.

This is about the next 100 years; those who get to the asteriod belt will be able to exploit all of that raw material. Jump to the moon, jump to the belt, jump to...? Hopefully by then we can all get along and retrieve the resources for the benefit of all, not for a single nation or a single nation's elite.

[joshcryer]

69. It will never be built.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

74. Nice, BUT

the fact that Bush backed off the whole program for 8 long years, creating a years-long gap between the "now" and the "tomorrow" made so many NASA people unemployed:(

The transition should have been seamless....with MORE hiring for the "next new thing", while the current folks wound down the "now thing", as they too transitioned into the "new thing".