Slashdot Mirror
NASA May Fly Humans On the Less Powerful Version of Its Deep-Space Rocket (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: NASA may make some big changes to the first couple flights of its future deep-space rocket, the Space Launch System, after getting a recent funding boost from Congress to build a new launch platform. When humans fly on the rocket for the first time in the 2020s, they might ride on a less powerful version of the vehicle than NASA had expected. If the changes move forward, it could scale down the first crewed mission into deep space in more than 45 years. The SLS has been in development for the last decade, and when complete, it will be NASA's main rocket for taking astronauts to the Moon and Mars. NASA has long planned to debut the SLS with two crucial test missions. The first flight, called EM-1, will be uncrewed, and it will send the smallest planned version of the rocket on a three-week long trip around the Moon. Three years later, NASA plans to launch a bigger, more powerful version of the rocket around the Moon with a two-person crew -- a mission called EM-2.
But now, NASA may delay that rocket upgrade and fly the same small version of the SLS for the crewed flight instead. If that happens, NASA would need to come up with a different type of mission for the crew to do since they won't be riding on the more powerful version of the vehicle. "If EM-2 flies that way, we would have to change the mission profile because we can't do what we could do if we had the [larger SLS]," Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator, said during a Congressional hearing yesterday. NASA clarified that astronauts would still fly around the Moon on the second flight. However, the rocket would not be able to carry extra science payloads as NASA had originally planned. "The primary objective for EM-2 is to demonstrate critical functions with crew aboard, including mission planning, system performance, crew interfaces, and navigation and guidance in deep space, which can be accomplished on a Block 1 SLS," a NASA spokesperson said in a statement to The Verge.
But now, NASA may delay that rocket upgrade and fly the same small version of the SLS for the crewed flight instead. If that happens, NASA would need to come up with a different type of mission for the crew to do since they won't be riding on the more powerful version of the vehicle. "If EM-2 flies that way, we would have to change the mission profile because we can't do what we could do if we had the [larger SLS]," Robert Lightfoot, NASA's acting administrator, said during a Congressional hearing yesterday. NASA clarified that astronauts would still fly around the Moon on the second flight. However, the rocket would not be able to carry extra science payloads as NASA had originally planned. "The primary objective for EM-2 is to demonstrate critical functions with crew aboard, including mission planning, system performance, crew interfaces, and navigation and guidance in deep space, which can be accomplished on a Block 1 SLS," a NASA spokesperson said in a statement to The Verge.
SLS looks like a total waste of money compared to the other commerical alternatives.
Why don't opponents simply get a respected thrid party to do a Cost/benefit analysis of the various systems ?
Then NASA can junk SLS and spend the billions on useful stuff.
But it's all about money and jobs,
Yes. This is basically just a desperate attempt to keep SLS relevant (sorta) long enough to keep the money flowing for a few more years before SpaceX makes this colossal waste of money so obvious that it can no longer be tolerated, even by an utterly supine Congress.
Best of luck to them...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Even if it's true NASA has become more risk averse, which I don't believe, that's not what's going on here. The problem is that they tried to save money and ended up spending more.
They refurbished the mobile launch platform they built for the cancelled Ares rocket to carry the SLS rockets, but when they finished the design of the larger SLS 1B rocket it no longer fit. And it's not like you can go down to the local welding shop and have them whip up one of these. So they're limited to the smaller Block 1 rockets until they can build another one.
NASA was plenty risk-averse in the Space Race days. They delayed the Apollo program for 20 months after the Apollo 1 fire, which pretty much used up all the program slack they had if they were to land a man on the Moon "before the decade was out." Lunar module Eagle landed on July 20, 1969. The big advantages back then was that they had a clear goal everyone was committed to, and were willing to spend fabulous amounts of money achieving it.
Adjusted for inflation, NASA budgets in the 60s were over twice the size of the current budget, and the majority of that budget was going to Apollo. That's over 20 billion a year in current dollars. Throw 20 billion dollars a year at Mars for as along as it takes to get there, and we'd have a good chance of seeing a manned landing attempted in the 2035 launch window. The problem is 17 years may be within most of our lifetimes, but that's too long for politicians to delay gratification.
That's why the Moon. Sure we already did it fifty years ago, and there's not many compelling reasons to land massive human habitats down in that particular gravity well now that we're so good at robotics. But it's something that could be done with spare change in the political lifetimes of people now in office.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.