Slashdot Mirror
NASA Unveils Design for New Space Launch System
wooferhound writes with an article in the Orlando Sentinel about NASA's Deep Space Exploration project. From the article: "After months of debate, NASA has settled on plans for its next spaceship — a space shuttle hybrid that will fly twice in the next decade and cost $30 billion through 2021, according to senior administration officials and internal NASA documents. That NASA decided to recycle elements of the shuttle is not unexpected. Last year, Congress and the White House agreed NASA should reuse equipment from old programs and the new design — which includes a giant fuel tank and two booster rockets — largely reflects that compromise. The most noticeable change is the plane-like orbiter will be replaced by an Apollo-like crew capsule atop the tank."
The Space Launch System will be powered by a combination of the Shuttle main engine for the core launch stage, and the J-2 engine (from the Saturn V project) for the upper stage. The same solid booster rockets used for Shuttle missions will be used for at least the initial unmanned launch in 2017, but NASA will have a design contest to replace them for the 2021 crewed launch and beyond.
And for only $30 billion, and with 50,000 kg LESS lift capacity than it had in 1969.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
How is this different from the canceled Ares? Or they just trim out the LEO variant?
about how much NASA costs, I just posted this same link on another site. It shows an outstanding graph of the overall federal budget for 2011 broken down by Agency.
As the Bad Astronomer says in his writing, find NASA's budget.
The link.
*Ok, I'm a bit late as the ranting has already begun
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
So if you thought that the shuttle was a political compromise of various different interests this will look even worse. There's one primary reason that this new design uses so much of the shuttle: whiny lobbyists and politicians who want to make sure that the factories in their home districts stay doing the exact same thing. To most Slashdot readers the space program isn't what may be the first stepping stones to the stars, and we imagine people a thousand years from now looking back on this early age as we look back on the great achievements of the past. These people don't look at that way. They look at this as one more form of pork. And frankly, given how bad the economy is, I sort of understand that. Their home districts need every job they can get.
But even given that, this still pisses me off. This will have less lift capacity than the Saturn V or the shuttle, will be less frequently launchable, will be essentially not reusable. This is a clear step backwards. More expensive and less capable. Great way to go.
Space X is developing the falcon heavy, ( The link. ) Why not use that instead. It lifts 53 metric tons for only $80-125 million a pop. Sure, the payload is a lot less, but the cost is 1/10 of what Nasa is thinking about. And those are hard numbers, not NASA will go over-budget numbers. I suppose the one drawback is in scenarios where you want to send a vehicle up there all in one piece.
If only the US Government had more balls and more incentive to launch a great big rocket into space, we might all be space cowboys by now.
If only NASA had the budget of 5% of the US Military, I could take my space guitar to a much larger International Space Station and sing the blues all with my other space buddies.
If only we all could see the amazing opportunities and forward thinking plans which a healthy space program can produce, I could retire on a farm on Mars.
You know what is missing from this so-called modern world? Ego, If only the US had the biggest Ego to orbit the center of the galaxy, we would all be better off. Just having the opportunity to say to the world, hey, I've got a plan for the world, let me build a space station orbiting around every single planet in this galaxy and we can all see the wonderful beauty that is our Solar System, we can all bring back to earth ideas for peace and ideas for bigger and better scientific projects, and oh yeah, We're the U.S of Effin' Aye, and we have a Saturn X. 5 Times the size of Saturn V and a beautiful sight to see as it takes off, this is our mark on society, this is our Image for the future free for all to look up to, and we love doing it too. Because we're the USA!
But no, instead, we've shut down it all and dug our heads in the sand, for fear of financial collapse.
This isn't the america I remember.
We are all cowards.
What is NASA going to do with those two flights and what are they going to do next? There is no credible plan at all. Fly to some asteroid, then maybe to mars. But in order to do what? Put a flag in the sand of Mars so that half a century later somebody can fly a space probe to the planet and make a picture to combat the conspiracy theories that the Mars flight was all fake?
There is no vision in this other than giving even more money to the firms that provided overpriced space ships and rockets in the past. There is no research in this, other than whatever happens to be picked up along the way by some great coincidence, just as with Apollo that had a grand total on one scientist flying to the moon.
If you want to do manned spaceflight, you need a vision or it doesn't work. Because manned spaceflight in and of itself is stupid. As stupid as plonking down huge stones after dragging them for kilometers through the dirt in order to build Stone Henge. As just as stupid as breaking out stones in a quarry, carrying them along the Nile and building pyramids. Or wasting your time to write a symphony, playing football, chess or go (my favorite).
There is no credible economic reason. There is very little indication, that the scientific gains of manned spaceflight will be worth the monetary expenditure for centuries. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth it, if that is what you decide to focus on. If you say, we think it's worth it, because human nature sometimes requires a higher goal that doesn't have a lot to do with the individuals of the society, but the society as a whole - and as such can truly be enjoyed by all because nobody has any tangible benefit - then this is a good enough reason.
But unfortunately our societies have devolved to the point of regarding everything that doesn't have a tangible benefit to identifiable individuals as a waste of time - unless it is part of those practices that were grandfathered in from eras when people thought otherwise.
What is being overlooked here, imo, is the factor that drove the Apollo program to such fantastic feats on its relatively short timescale. That type of commitment and effort is _never_ going to be undertaken without the threat of another country topping the US. Barring the type of wake-up-call moment like Sputnik or Gagarin, the necessary desire to get us to the aspirational next level will continue on this iterative path of fits and starts. The key factor that allowed for Mercury -> Gemini -> Apollo was the race to the moon. Right now we have these wishy-washy blurred objectives like wouldn't it be great to visit an asteroid or maybe we'll be walking on Mars in 20 years. F that. We really need a challenger. China. Like the title says, they need to get to Mars. Will them putting something real into orbit do the trick? Is that even attainable given their current launch capabilities (I think so). Until something like that happens, we're doomed to live in this bureaucratic netherworld of pork. The public (I'm guilty too) is too apathetic to realize the country could really use something inspiring like this. Otherwise all the wonderful brainpower out there will continue to funnel into the world of spooky finance transactions... who can blame them!!
NASA is one of the FEW places where the $ spent MORE THAN PAYS OFF in actual $$s into our economy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding
Every dollar spent on NASA actually GENERATES between $7 and $22 for our economy:
http://www.bu.edu/sjmag/scimag2005/features/NASA.htm
People who think spending $ on NASA is bad are the same kind of people that think treating an infected wound with HIV infected dog poop is good.
I'm not a physicist, so I don't really know a huge amount about this. Is there actually a viable design for a spaceplane with a large cargo capacity in the works anywhere?
Yes, there is a "viable" design for a spaceplane with large cargo capacity in the works. Its still a significant amount of development away from production, but its past a concept. Its called the Skylon
The 1960s were so great we're going to go back to them?
Let's see. Moon Rockets, SR-71, Boeing 747, Boeing 737, Concorde, Arpanet, RAM, BASIC, Electronic Fuel Injection.
I'd say the 60's is pretty much the local peak of human achievement.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Will that be a return to turbo-props and a wooden frame.
What NASA appear to be saying is that they've made no significant progress in spacecraft or engine design over the past 40 years.
If all they've done is stagnate, then the NEXT iteration after that can only be the start of the slide backwards.
(Note to self: start learning to ride a horse and hunt with a bow.)
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Those strap on boosters are very unlike that of Soyuz / R-7 rocket. In the latter, they are very similar to core stage, burning the same fuel mixture (kerosene and oxygen; a mix very suitable for first stages, giving nice balance of good specific impulse, high fuel and exhaust density, hence small tanks and large static thrust; a sweet spot, one sort of aimed at in coupling and "averaging" characteristics of STS hydrogen-burning engines with SRBs ...yeah, "so why not just use kerosene?", like Saturn V also did BTW)
... most frequently used launch vehicle in the world" (and one of least expensive ones). With designs like Angara or Falcon improving even more on the concept, for example with parallel grouping of identical first stages (bringing even more benefits of mass production)
Generally, seeing capsules as a step backwards is at odds with basic chronology. Everybody at first expected "aerodynamic" or "spaceplane-ish" shapes from reentry vehicles, and worked towards it hard. They proved relatively unworkable. Blunt shape entry capsule was a relatively late innovation, an improvement; and a bit of a surprise. There's nothing wrong with capsules; physics, rocket equation, are a bitch.
Soyuz also worked out fine, being "the most reliable
One that hath name thou can not otter
When you have cheap Fuel and no Concerns about global warming. Making Bigger and Faster means transportation is easy. Fuel isn't cheap anymore. So we are trying to keep the same old stuff from the 60s but make them use less fuel a much harder engineering challenge. I want to make my car faster and fuel isn't a concern make the engine with more cylinders and grater gear ratios. But to make my car 10% more fuel efficient while keeping the existing power is much harder to do.
fuel (and oxidizer) is a TINY percentage of the cost of a rocket launch - usually less than 1% of the cost of the launch. launch vehicles are never optimized for fuel economy - they are optimized for performance above all else.
they are reusing components from the shuttle because they are still (just) available. components from Saturn V (engines, mostly) would do a far better job, but they haven't been built in decades and couldn't be reproduced for a sensible amount of money. NASA is half way through a project to reproduce a J-2 engine for the new vehicle's upper stage (the same engine was used for Saturn V upper stages 50 years ago), and it's cost a VERY large amount of money to get as far as they have.
there is also a huge dollop of politics and pork involved. re-using shuttle components keeps existing contractors (and jobs), rather than causing uncomfortable restructuring and job losses right before an election year.