NASA’s Space Launch System is officially all systems go for Mars and Moon landings

[Baclava]

http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/14-229_0-640x360

NASA’s Space Launch System, the USA’s first exploration-class spacecraft since the Space Shuttle, has officially passed the whiteboard formulation stage and moved into full-scale development. The SLS, which will be the most powerful rocket ever built, will allow NASA to land astronauts on Mars and captured asteroids, and perhaps other planets and moons throughout the Solar System as well.

The first SLS mission should lift off no later than 2018, sending the Orion capsule around the Moon. Asteroid- and Mars-bound missions should follow a few years after that. The question is, will NASA be the first to send humans to Mars (probably no sooner than 2032) — or will a commercial company such as SpaceX get there much earlier?

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188866-nasas-space-launch-system-is-officially-all-systems-go-for-mars-and-moon-landings

-----------------------------------------

SpaceX rocket self-destructs after detecting an ‘anomaly’ – reusable space launchers are tricky business

At its test site in Texas, a new SpaceX rocket has self-destructed mid-flight. As far as we’re aware, this marks the first major failure for SpaceX’s commercial space launch program. In a statement, SpaceX says the rocket detected an anomaly and automatically initiated its self-destruct sequence. No one (and no cows) were harmed in the explosion.

A commercial Falcon 9 launch, which was scheduled to put AsiaSat 6 into orbit on Tuesday, has been delayed while SpaceX analyzes the data from the failed test rocket

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188593-spacex-rocket-self-destructs-after-detecting-an-anomaly-reusable-space-launchers-are-tricky-business

[Warren DeMontague]

1. Awesome.

Now for a real inspirational giant leap, they could hit the 2021 launch window for a combo Mars-VENUS human flyby mission.

Dont know if we could get the necessary systems ready and proven in time, but if we could... That would be cool.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. I really can't envision a human mission to Venus

Unlike Mars and the Moon, it would be nearly impossible for a human to survive entering the Venusian atmosphere, much less making it to the oven-like surface and surviving there.

[cemaphonic]

3. Not to mention coming home

Venus has a lot more mass and a thicker atmosphere than Mars, so a lander that could return to Earth would be a very difficult problem, even setting aside the corrosive toxic soup that makes up the atmosphere.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. You guys need to work on reading a bit closer.

Obviously no one is going to be landing on venus any time soon.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. That's why i said "flyby"

We arent likely going to be -landing- on mars before 2030, either.

Still, the requirements for a flyby - basically, long duration, recycling of consumables and radiation shielding, could conceivably be nailed down by the specific window of a 2021 launch, which would permit a dual mars-venus trip.

I give it long odds of actually happening, but it could be doable in that timeframe, especially if we have the orion capsule and the sls ready.

It's also worth noting, from a scientific and exploratory perspective, that Apollo 8 was similarly a huge stride forward. Demonstrating the capacity of the apollo CM-SM to sustain outside LEO and lunar duration flight. And it was an inspirational, exploratory milestone as well.

It is of course debatable what the scientific value of a (I guess Venus--Mars, instead of the other way around) flyby mission would be, but if one of the early goals of the exploration/orion program is to demonstrate the systems for long-duration human spaceflight outside of near Earth orbit, why not? Why not have an interesting destination(s) instead of, say, a Lagrange point or an asteroid, which doesn't seem terribly inspiring.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140305-mars-asteroid-nasa-congress-space/

http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/39714inspiration-mars-sets-sights-on-venusmars-flyby-in-2021

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/mars-flyby-schedule-reset-2021-will-it-ever-fly-n41546

[Art_from_Ark]

9. A manned flyby of Venus might be "cool",

but it wouldn't serve any practical purpose, since Venus offers no prospects for colonization, and would thus seem to be a waste of resources that could be directed elsewhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

10. I answered that in my edit.

If one of the purposes of the early orion/exploration flights is to demonstrate the capability of long duration flight outside near earth orbit, why not have an interesting and inspirational destination? (Destinations) As it happens, the 2021 window allows for a flyby of 2 planets in approx. the same time a mars flyby would require alone, anyway.

What was the scientific rationale behind apollo 8, other than to demonstrate and test capability?

[Art_from_Ark]

11. The rationale for Apollo 8 was that we could make it to the Moon,

orbit it, and come back to Earth safely. At that time, there was great hope that the Moon could be colonized, so Apollo 8 was considered to be a practical mission that could bring us one step closer to the dream of colonization. Of course, that dream started fizzling out in the mid-70s, but Moon colonization is still within the realm of possibility.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Still, my point stands.

It's logical to do a Mars flyby before we send a mission to land there, anyway. By best estimates we won't be ready to land on Mars until the end of the next decade- yet, we do have extensive experience with long duration spaceflight, and a "we choose to go to the moon" challenge with a deadline might kick the technological and engineering development required, for instance, to build a hab module which can keep astronauts alive for 600 days while providing adequate protection from radiation (including additional shielded areas in case of solar storms) ... Systems to recycle water, etc.

AFAIUI, In 2021 we could conceivably send a flyby mission past both Mars and Venus in the same time window, with the same energy expenditure, essentially, as it would take to fly by mars alone- which is something we'll need to do anyway.

Humans flying by 2 planets in the solar system, within the next 8 years. That, to me, sounds like a giant leap.

I doubt it will happen, but, it's an idea.

Also, venus has gotten the short shrift in exploratory terms, for obvious reasons, but it is still an interesting case scientifically.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. A manned fly-by mission doesn't achieve anything more than an unmanned one

Being a fly-by, the encounter happens very quickly, and has to follow a pre-determined program. There's no room for the crew to make the on-the-spot decisions of what to observe, where to go etc. You've sent a huge life support system up there for what - a couple of years for the whole trip? - to have humans seeing things for a few hours.

You'd achieve much more by sending something into orbit. There might be a case for a manned mission to Mars orbit - they'd be able to do a detailed study of Mars, and with very little extra effort, they could land on one of its moons and do some geology. Plus the logistics of going into orbit, possibly rendezvousing with supply ships or the rocket to extract them from the orbit, etc,, would be more relevant to a landing mission.

If you want to test a module to keep people alive, then you can do that in a high earth orbit, or something around the Moon, or at an Earth-Moon Lagrange point. You might do that with non-human subjects at first, given the uncertainties, but automating feeding for that long might be a challenge not directly relevant to people.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Certainly the inspirational aspect is a big part. No, a manned flyby doesnt achieve much science

Although arguments have been made, I'm sure someone could suss out some value in it.

What I'm saying is, if we're serious about sending humans to Mars, sooner or later we're going to need to see if the systems work for that long duration -and distance- of a flight. It's entirely possible we wont send anyone out there until we're ready to land.

But if we wanted to run those tests earlier, this flyby window might make sense.

[Chathamization]

44. The manned space program in general isn't practical

Increasingly so when you go further out and talk about stuff like landing a person on Mars.

[Baclava]

4. A One Way Mission looks more likely. thousands of applicants applied

More than 200,000 people applied for a one-way ticket to Mars in a bid to become one of the first colonists, who are expected to settle on the planet by 2023.


Spreading our seed to the Stars!

oh yeah

[Art_from_Ark]

7. Yeah, and there was going to be a base on the Moon by 1999

[daleo]

45. I remember that show

And it's a damn good thing we didn't store nuclear waste on the moon.

[Art_from_Ark]

48. That came out in 1974 or thereabouts

and 1999 seemed like such a long way away that it seemed entirely possible that a base and a huge nuclear waste storage facility on the Moon would be in place by then

[daleo]

49. Yep, it seemed possible then

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I doubt that will go anywhere. But that said

I suspect by the end of this century there will be people living permanently on Mars.

[zappaman]

31. Very cool.

But I'd rather go to Uranus.

[Warren DeMontague]

32. Sorry

It's closed for the season!

[aggiesal]

13. Elon Musk DEMANDS his employees ...

at SpaceX work at least 60 hr. work weeks.

Average age is approximately 30, so there are a lot
of youngsters who only know 60 hr. work weeks.

And you wonder why they had problems.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Oh give me a break. Elon musk has done some amazing shit.

His private entity has spun up to orbital capability in something like a decade, from scratch. That's impressive as fuck.

Anyone genuinely involved in the rocket business knows, rockets explode sometimes when you're developing them. SpaceX's track record is nothing short of phenomenal.

Also. It's not "NASA vs SpaceX" - that is old school thinking. Farming the business of LEO out to other folks will allow NASA to do what it is supposed to do, namely deep space exploration- and that is what the SLS is all about.

[aggiesal]

15. Yup rockets explode. ...

2 or 3 more explosions and SpaceX will have a hard time insuring their rockets.
SpaceX is a for profit rocket making company, so it's all about profit.

Also, Musk said that they'll start working 40 hour weeks once they land on Mars.
So go ahead and keep working your 60 hr. work weeks.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Honestly, 60 hour weeks aren't super unusual in, say, silicon valley.

That's a simple statement of fact, neither pro or con on my part.

But whatever. I suspect Mr. Musk and SpaceX will be fine.

Dont work for orbital sciences, do ya?

[aggiesal]

24. I have no problem working 60 Hr. work weeks. ...

I've done in the past, and I'll do it again in the future.

My problem is that SpaceX mandates it.
If I have to work 60 hours to get my job done, I'll do it
I don't expect to do it for a full year. Maybe 1 month tops, but
to go to Mars, when the closest Mars gets to planet Earth occurs
in a small window every 2 years, means that they don't expect to
get to Mars for at least 2-5 years. That's a lot of hours.

If I work 60 Hrs. to get the job done, that's on me. When a company
demands that you put in 60 hrs. you should get paid for every hour.
That's my point.

As an example, I was contracting at Sony when management got all the workers together
to let them know that for the next 3 months everyone has to work 60 hrs. per week.
They didn't care how you did it, 12 hrs. per day for 5 days or 10 hrs. per day for 6 days.
That's an extra 20 hrs. go without pay, but when bonuses come around they would be compensated.
As a contractor, I was informed that the 60 hr. work week did not apply to me because
they knew I'd have to get paid for all 60 hours.

The direct employees would say "... but we'll get bonuses ..." so I responded
"... I'll calculate the 20 hrs. per week I'd get paid for the next 13 weeks, and
compare it with your bonus, and we'll see who comes out ahead. ..." Their
bonus doesn't come close.

People fought hard to get 40 hr. work weeks and overtime pay.
When workers submit themselves to this abusive treatment, where they are
asked to work 20 hrs. a week for free, it brings everyone else down with them,
because all companies will now expect their employees to do the same.

Case in point? Silicon Valley.

[kentauros]

22. The majority of people that actually work for NASA

aren't the same ones that build the rockets. Those are built by "for-profit rocket-making companies." NASA is more of a research agency, much like many of the other science agencies.

NASA and JPL may help design and fly the equipment, but they didn't engineer, and build it all. Take a look at the numbers of people that work for NASA, and then compare with the number of people that work for all of the contractors with offices around any of their sites. It's rather lopsided in favor of the private companies...

[LongTomH]

51. Thanks for posting this! I also recommend that people look up the concept of "Cost-Plus" funding!

It's why all government-funded project are subject to cost-overruns. Elon Musk has spent his own money developing the Falcon series.

My money is on SpaceX being ready before this Space Launch System.

[davidpdx]

17. It would have really been nice if we had been at this point at around six years ago

So we wouldn't have to sit on the ground and depend on other nations to take us into space. The entire thing was fucked up and is putting us behind technologically again. It was and is about money. Congress didn't want to cough up the money to fund the program. A dozen years on we are still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, but fuck the space program.

I just hope we can catch up again because new technology is what is going to drive jobs in the future.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Well, the problem really goes back to Nixon IMHO

He eviscerated the Space Program, pretty much eliminated both the Apollo Applications Project save Skylab and guaranteed that much of the hard work done on Apollo would be consigned to the trash heap, to the point where we literally now have to fish F-1 engines out of the Atlantic to figure out some aspects of how they were built...

And when he signed on for the space shuttle he guaranteed that it would need to be done in such a cut corners, half-assed way (dont get me wrong, thr STS was still an amazing engineering accomplishment, but it could have been much more) that the inherent safety issues were almost inevitable before the thing got off the ground.

So when it became clear we could no longer safely fly shuttles anymore, we were bound to have a period of no orbital launch capability, although I suspect that the original falcon 9 (not the reusable test version that recently had to be aborted) and the dragon capsule could be man-rated in short order if we REALLY needed domestic leo launch capability.

As it is, I do think letting other private entities handle low earth orbit while nasa focuses on deep space, makes sense.

[davidpdx]

19. Thank for the history behind that

I agree with you. I was a big fan on the shuttle program and am a fan of the space program. It is a shame I never got to see a launch.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I think the SLS is going to be one hell of an awesome show when they start launching those!

So hey, maybe there is still time for both of us.

[davidpdx]

21. Indeed

[ChisolmTrailDem]

25. I'll make every effort to be there for the first launch! nt

[3rdwaydem]

26. Exciting!

[XRubicon]

27. LOL Four SSME's

Kinda like bringing your best china on a picnic and throwing it out like paper plates.

They were designed to be reusable and the price is built into the design.

[Johonny]

28. A lukewarm idea that hasn't really fired up the industry

It is just about the only way to get the missions Washington wants NASA to do at the price Washington is willing to pay. A launch vehicle with large solid rocket motors and old shuttle engines doesn't really fire up the imagination of the young engineers of today. It feels like a great step sideways and I'm still not convinced more than a few of these things ever fly. If people want a better program than this though... they need to spend $$$. No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[XRubicon]

29. It's all the old shuttle contractors cobbling together shuttle parts

They want back on the payroll.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I think long term the idea is to rebuild the F1 engines for the side boosters.

2 of those on each burning liquid fuel, to replace the SRBs.

The simple fact is we are long overdue for some real heavy lift capability.

[XRubicon]

37. The original shuttle was supposed to have liquid fly back boosters

They were supposed to fly back via an attached jet engine.

I think ATK will make sure the solids don't change to liquid boosters.

[Warren DeMontague]

39. Maybe, maybe not.

But yes, nixon cut a lot of corners on the shuttle, that was one.

[XRubicon]

40. I'm not a fan of bringing back old designs like J-2 or F-1

Don't get me wrong they were great, but... I see it like dusting off the blueprints for a '57 Chevy and asking Chevrolet to build you 30 of them. The materials are no longer available, compromises in the design were based on the available technology at the time.

New designs should stand on the shoulders of the old but not be shoe horned into a new engine for the sake of calling it an F-1.

I can tell you that the SSME's they are talking about will cost somewhere near 100 million each, for one use, dropped in the ocean. No problem using the left overs but I think there are only about a dozen left on our planet.

[Warren DeMontague]

43. I like new ideas. Hope that VASIMR engine becomes reality, for instance.

But in terms of getting stuff off the ground, we have a lot of catching up to do. If we had spent the past 35 years maintiaing our heavy lift capability, it would be a diff. Story, of course.

[LongTomH]

52. ATK (originally Morton-Thiokol) has strong supporters in Congress

They have no intention of allowing any big NASA project to fly without solid, strap-on boosters.

Someone always defends solid rockets as a 'reliable' technology. Challenger proved they're not. The advantage of liquid fuel rockets is, that they can be throttled down or shut off if something goes wrong. If the engines are clustered, like the Saturn series or Elon Musk's Falcon rockets, the malfunctioning engine can be shut down and the vehicle may still be able to complete the mission.

[NightWatcher]

33. Funny how it took us 8 years to get to the Moon back in 1961, but now it's so much harder?

I'm not saying, I'm just saying (and hiding)

[Warren DeMontague]

35. Its not "harder". We just don't have the motivation.

We went to the moon. It's a fact just like evolution and global warming.


Hell, scientists have been bouncing lasers off the ALSEP laser reflectors left by the apollo astronauts for 40 years.

I realize you may have been kidding, but that "faked" moon landing conspiracy stuff is tiresome.

[NightWatcher]

36. Technology for everything else has advanced by leaps and bounds in the 40 years since then

I'm shocked that NASA saw very little of that. In 1961 a telephone was rotary and could call across the country, often with the help of an operator. Today my phone can do everything, oh and it's not connected to a wire.

We now have missiles that we can launch from the other side of the planet that pilot themselves to the target's front door or can be flown down their chimney via remote control.

I'm surprised how space exploration got left in the dust.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Me, too, but of course the story isnt so black and white.

The truth is, we've increased our knowledge of the solar system by several factors of 10, in the past few decades.

The surrounding star systems, exoplanets- those were unknown, until the mid 90s.

We've landed a probe on titan and a nuclear powered SUV sized rover on Mars, the latter via rocket powered skycrane.

It is an exciting time.

[Baclava]

41. We're landing a robot on an asteroid - that's pretty cool

and maybe more

NASA's bold plan: Landing people on asteroids

NASA says it's already trying to pick out an asteroid that a robotic mission could reach, capture and bring into an orbit around the moon. Astronauts would then travel on the Orion spacecraft to explore the asteroid and collect samples.

Material from the asteroid's core could contain information about the age and formation of the solar system.

The agency says the approach "makes good use of capabilities NASA already has, while also advancing a number of technologies needed for longer-term plans: sending humans to Mars in the 2030s."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/13/tech/nasa-asteroid-landing/

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Yep, and next year we'll get close up looks at both Pluto AND Ceres.

[Baclava]

46. NASA’s Orion EFT-1 Spacecraft Set for Dec. 2014 Launch

Fabrication of the pathfinding version of NASA’s Orion crew capsule slated for its inaugural unmanned test flight in December is entering its final stages at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) launch site in Florida.

The two-orbit, four and a half hour EFT-1 flight will lift the Orion spacecraft and its attached second stage to an orbital altitude of 3,600 miles, about 15 times higher than the International Space Station (ISS) – and farther than any human spacecraft has journeyed in 40 years.



http://www.universetoday.com/114064/heat-protecting-back-shell-tiles-installed-on-nasas-orion-eft-1-spacecraft-set-for-dec-2014-launch/#more-114064

[TheMightyFavog]

47. I hope you are just joking...

[name not needed]

50. Does this mean we're gonna bomb the moon again?

[LongTomH]

53. 'Bad Astronomer' Phil Plait isn't a fan of the SLS either!

I've made my reservations plain in earlier posts; it seems that astronomer/science blogger Phil Plait has similar reservations:

What I want to point out—again—is how the Space Launch System is gumming up the works. SLS is supposed to be a heavy-lift rocket designed by NASA to replace the shuttles. I say “supposed to be” because I have been saying for quite some time that it is very likely to get bloated, over budget, and behind schedule. That’s a common circumstance for really big NASA projects (like the Space Station, the shuttle, Hubble, JWST, and others). NASA’s bureaucracy gets in the way, and as the dollar signs increase, Congress-critters start getting their own states and districts involved, muddying the situation further.

.............//snip

As it stands right now, the first uncrewed test launch date for SLS is set for late 2017, with a crewed flight four years later; a long time from now. These things historically have rarely gotten off on time, too. SpaceX is far closer to having a working crewed vehicle, but if this budget goes through as written, it could mean we won’t have American rockets putting Americans in space again for several more years.

.............//snip

This is getting so ridiculous that I’m starting to lean more and more toward an outright cancellation of SLS. It’s just too big and tempting a target for Congress members to avoid. President Obama canceled its predecessor, Constellation, because of cost overruns and scheduling slips. I still think it was the right thing to do; we’d have thrown billions at a rocket that we still wouldn’t have. SLS is seriously starting to feel like it’s slipping into that same groove. I’m not the only person to think so, either.

An excerpt from the Aviation Week article linked to by Phil:

Simply put, the SLS program should be canceled now to free up approximately $10 billion programmed for this decade. This money could then be redirected to continue the planned flight tests of the Orion spacecraft with the much lower-cost Falcon Heavy booster while making a robust investment in a first-generation space station in the vicinity of the Moon. An investment in such a cislunar station would provide—by the early 2020s—a multifunctional platform to act as a fuel depot, a workstation for robotic operations on the Moon and a habitat to protect against the more intense radiation environment outside of the Earth's magnetic field. This station could even be used as a habitat during longer-duration human missions to an asteroid and eventually to Mars.

From the Space.com article, also linked:

Earlier, SpaceX stated it could develop a rocket that would launch 150 metric tons of payload,or 20 metric tons more than the most powerful version of SLS at a fixed price development cost of $2.5 billion (an amount that comes to roughly 1.25 years of SLS's funding). Also worthy of consideration is spacecraft launch company United Launch Alliance's (ULA) proposed — but not currently pursued — economical, large launcher that would loft 140 metric tons at $5.5 billion total development cost.

Wouldn't it make more sense for NASA to buy a huge rocket from SpaceX or ULA and get much more capability for less money? If SLS were cancelled now, couldn't a small part of the resulting savings help speed up development of the large SpaceX or ULA launch vehicles — or both? In fact, this was exactly what NASA proposed to Congress before SLS was legally forced on them.

Edited to add: I've addressed some of my objections to the current Space Launch System before. Quoting from Elon Musk:

.....prices are expected to rise significantly in the next few years, according to defense department officials. Why? Musk says a lot of the answer is in the government’s traditional “cost-plus” contracting system, which ensures that manufacturers make a profit even if they exceed their advertised prices. “If you were sitting at an executive meeting at Boeing and Lockheed and you came up with some brilliant idea to reduce the cost of Atlas or Delta, you’d be fired,” he says. “Because you’ve got to go report to your shareholders why you made less money. So their incentive is to maximize the cost of a vehicle, right up to the threshold of cancellation.”