Space Launch System Passes Critical Design Phase; Building Can Begin

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
Space Launch System Passes Critical Design Phase; Building Can Begin


NASA's proposed Space Launch System, designed to take astronauts back into space, has passed its Critical Design Review, meaning components for the project can start to be built.

NASA's push to get us back into space exploration passed a important test late this week when the Space Launch System passed a critical design review, paving the way for construction of the vehicle. It will be NASA's first human-rated expendable rocket since the Saturn V took Apollo capsules skyward between 1966 and 1973.

"We've nailed down the design of SLS, we've successfully completed the first round of testing of the rocket's engines and boosters, and all the major components for the first flight are now in production," said Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator of NASA's Exploration Systems Development Division. "There have been challenges, and there will be more ahead, but this review gives us confidence that we are on the right track for the first flight of SLS and using it to extend permanent human presence into deep space."

Three variations of the Block 1 configuration [http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SLS-Fact-Sheet_aug2014-finalv3.pdf] were approved:


The basic Block 1 will have minimum 70-metric-ton (77-ton) lift capability and be powered by twin boosters and four RS-25 engines.
Block 1B will have a more powerful upper stage designed to lift 105 metric tons (115 tons).
Block 2 will add a pair of advanced solid or liquid propellant boosters to provide a 130-metric-ton (143-ton) lift capacity.


While the Saturn V at its peak could lift 120 tons, the SLS system is expected to cost much less, even in 2015 dollars. The Saturn V roughly cost $500 million per launch [http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-16_Apollo_Program_Budget_Appropriations.htm], although many expect that number to be too low.

This was the final step in the concept and design phase. Design certification will happen in 2017 once manufacturing and testing is complete. The SLS will be taking the Orion spacecraft skyward in 2018, the first exploration mission being an unmanned trip for a planned seven days, and the second (set for 2023) finally taking man back into space.

"This is a major step in the design and readiness of SLS," said John Honeycutt, SLS program manager. "Our team has worked extremely hard, and we are moving forward with building this rocket. We are qualifying hardware, building structural test articles, and making real progress."

Check out the artist's renderings of the SLS in the gallery below. The booster test photo, however, is actual testing of a RS-25 engine.

[gallery=4921]

Source: NASA [http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system]



Permalink
 

spartandude

New member
Nov 24, 2009
2,721
0
0
This makes me a very happy man. I know we are a long LONNNNG ways off from what we typically view as space exploration but every step in that directions is brilliant in my view.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,145
3,890
118
"It will be the first human-rated expendable rocket since the Saturn V took Apollo capsules skyward between 1966 and 1973"

That the US has? Or does Russia's not count because they are variants of older designs, not totally new ones?
 

John Keefer

Devilish Rogue
Aug 12, 2013
630
0
0
thaluikhain said:
"It will be the first human-rated expendable rocket since the Saturn V took Apollo capsules skyward between 1966 and 1973"

That the US has? Or does Russia's not count because they are variants of older designs, not totally new ones?
I'll clarify. NASA's ...
 

Remus

Reprogrammed Spambot
Nov 24, 2012
1,698
0
0
Now make a reusable rocket. Push for vertical landing. Lets see those technological leaps that the corporate space programs are aiming for.
 

Major_Tom

Anticitizen
Jun 29, 2008
799
0
0
Great news! Orion capsule has been successfully tested last year and it's waiting for its launch vehicle.
ravenshrike said:
Meanwhile, SpaceX will launch at least 10 Falcon Heavies for every SLS launch.

I mean, it's not that I don't enjoy pork now and again but... where's the beef?
How do you know? It hasn't even flown yet, maybe they'll blow up like the last Falcon 9. Falcon heavy can will be able to get stuff to orbit... and that's about it. It's a toy compared to the SLS. Private space companies are all about cost savings and profits, they will never be pioneers.
 

008Zulu_v1legacy

New member
Sep 6, 2009
6,019
0
0
If I recall correctly, the old shuttles were powered by a Pentium 2 (equiv) processor. Let's hope these new vehicles have at least a dual core.
 

kyp275

New member
Mar 27, 2012
190
0
0
Major_Tom said:
How do you know? It hasn't even flown yet, maybe they'll blow up like the last Falcon 9. Falcon heavy can will be able to get stuff to orbit... and that's about it. It's a toy compared to the SLS.
SpaceX hardly has a monopoly in exploding rockets, so I'm not sure what your point there is. Neither the SLS nor the Falcon Heavy's specs are secrets at this point either, so I'm guessing you either haven't kept up or aren't interested in being accurate. the Falcon Heavy can certainly do more than "get stuff to orbit" - specifically 16000kg for lunar and 14000kg for Martian insertions. It's best compared to Block 1 of the SLS, which does have slightly more LEO lift capability - 70 vs 54 tonnes, but hardly makes the FH a "toy".

The proper comparison for a Block 2 SLS would be the rocket that will be powered by the Raptor engines, which is certainly not the FH.

Private space companies are all about cost savings and profits, they will never be pioneers.
Between SpaceX and NASA, one of them has actually caused people to die due to "cost saving" concerns, I'll let you guess which one it is.
 

truckspond

New member
Oct 26, 2013
403
0
0
At least on this launch system the crew cabin is ABOVE the falling ice rather than alongside it.
 

Major_Tom

Anticitizen
Jun 29, 2008
799
0
0
kyp275 said:
SpaceX hardly has a monopoly in exploding rockets, so I'm not sure what your point there is.
My point was that "at least 10 Falcon Heavies for every SLS launch" came out of someone's ass. Neither vehicle has ever flown.
Neither the SLS nor the Falcon Heavy's specs are secrets at this point either, so I'm guessing you either haven't kept up or aren't interested in being accurate. the Falcon Heavy can certainly do more than "get stuff to orbit" - specifically 16000kg for lunar and 14000kg for Martian insertions. It's best compared to Block 1 of the SLS, which does have slightly more LEO lift capability - 70 vs 54 tonnes, but hardly makes the FH a "toy".

The proper comparison for a Block 2 SLS would be the rocket that will be powered by the Raptor engines, which is certainly not the FH.
OK, I was exaggerating a bit, we obviously "got stuff to Mars" with much weaker rockets, but FH's main role is an orbital launch vehicle and even Block 1 SLS is designed to carry Orion to Moon. When Block 1 is completed and tested it won't need a big leap to Block 2 (hence the toy remark). I didn't account for Raptor engines, I don't know what's their current state.
Between SpaceX and NASA, one of them has actually caused people to die due to "cost saving" concerns, I'll let you guess which one it is.
And SpaceX launched how many people to space?

But seriously, I didn't mean that as a bad thing. Reducing the cost of space travel is very important, but my point was that profit didn't get us to the Moon and certainly won't get us to Mars. It annoys me that every time NASA does something, people say it's a waste of money, but when a private space company does something, they are all ready to suck their dicks.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,082
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
kyp275 said:
Between SpaceX and NASA, one of them has actually caused people to die due to "cost saving" concerns, I'll let you guess which one it is.
Which is disingenuous because of the two, NASA has been putting people into Space for nearly 60 years while SpaceX hasn't put anyone into space. Easy to have zero failures when you also have zero successes as far as manned flights go.

Also, it's not like SpaceX hasn't been accused of cost saving at the expense of people.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/10/21/9583422/spacex-class-action-lawsuit-elon-musk

It's not the first allegation either and from what I understand, working major overtime is pretty much mandatory.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
"only" 500 million per launch? The shuttle cost 410 million per launch and was considered a failure because of it (it was supposed to keep costs down to allow for 50 missions per year instead of the 4 we averaged).
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Pyrian said:
Zontar said:
The shuttle cost 410 million per launch...
More like 1.5 billion, really...
That depends on how you do the math. When I say 410 million, I mean just the act of getting the thing from point A to point B, not the rest of the expenses that go with it.

Though to be frank I'd honestly like to see SOMETHING that can manage the "50 missions per year" we've wanted for decades now. That would have made the ISS take about a year to build instead of how long it actually did.
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,082
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Zontar said:
Pyrian said:
Zontar said:
The shuttle cost 410 million per launch...
More like 1.5 billion, really...
That depends on how you do the math. When I say 410 million, I mean just the act of getting the thing from point A to point B, not the rest of the expenses that go with it.

Though to be frank I'd honestly like to see SOMETHING that can manage the "50 missions per year" we've wanted for decades now. That would have made the ISS take about a year to build instead of how long it actually did.
Well, the ISS wasn't solely held up by shuttle availability. Funding for the various modules also caused issues. IIRC, the Russians were somewhat delayed delivering their modules because they couldn't find the money to pay for them.

A truly reusable space plane(especially a SSTO) might be able to hit 50 missions a year, but that has it's own challenges.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Dalisclock said:
Zontar said:
Pyrian said:
Zontar said:
The shuttle cost 410 million per launch...
More like 1.5 billion, really...
That depends on how you do the math. When I say 410 million, I mean just the act of getting the thing from point A to point B, not the rest of the expenses that go with it.

Though to be frank I'd honestly like to see SOMETHING that can manage the "50 missions per year" we've wanted for decades now. That would have made the ISS take about a year to build instead of how long it actually did.
Well, the ISS wasn't solely held up by shuttle availability. Funding for the various modules also caused issues. IIRC, the Russians were somewhat delayed delivering their modules because they couldn't find the money to pay for them.

A truly reusable space plane(especially a SSTO) might be able to hit 50 missions a year, but that has it's own challenges.
That's true, but had the shuttle managed even 1 more mission per year (which would only bring it up to 10% of its original intent) that still would have been a massive increase in terms of speed of getting things done, to say nothing of coming somewhere around its actual goal. Think of all that could have been accomplished.

But that's all in the past, got to think of the future and the fact that private industry is finally catching up in what could be a new space race of sorts.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
008Zulu said:
If I recall correctly, the old shuttles were powered by a Pentium 2 (equiv) processor. Let's hope these new vehicles have at least a dual core.
Hahaha. Maybe if they had upgrades. But in fact, the core systems...
Well, let's just say that at one point or another NASA more or less bought up the world's supply of 8086 processors for use in the shuttle.

Yeah, you heard that right. 8086 the very first generation of the x86 series processors. The ones designed in 1978...

A current PC has at least 37 years of Moore's law on one of those.
That's something like 18 iterations of it.
Meaning, on a very rough estimate, a modern desktop system is about 2[sup]18[/sup] times as powerful as the shuttle's computers...
(about 256,000 times as powerful)
 

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
11,286
7,082
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
Zontar said:
That's true, but had the shuttle managed even 1 more mission per year (which would only bring it up to 10% of its original intent) that still would have been a massive increase in terms of speed of getting things done, to say nothing of coming somewhere around its actual goal. Think of all that could have been accomplished.

But that's all in the past, got to think of the future and the fact that private industry is finally catching up in what could be a new space race of sorts.
I'm not disagreeing with you. The shuttle was a cool idea, which sadly was way too expensive and maintenance intensive to really make it worth it. Hopefully the next version of it will better live up to what the shuttle needed to be. Orion looks interesting, but it's also hard to see it as something other then upgraded apollo.