[I Don't Know If This Counts As Science] Space Launch System's Name

[Kibble]

Space Launch System isn't a very good name. Space Transportation System wasn't a very good name either, but it got the stylish moniker Space Shuttle. "Shuttle" just rolls off the tongue better than Es-Tee-Es. The same goes for Es-El-Es. I've been calling it simply "System" but that probably won't catch on. And at this point renaming seems to be pretty much out of the question.

But maybe there is a better solution. SLS uses the same rocket engines, the same tank hardware (slightly stretched), and the same SRBs (also stretched to five-segments) as Space Shuttle. Aside from ditching the Orbiter for an in-line stack (and putting the RS-25s where they should be) it is almost the same vehicle. The core of the vehicle will still be a big orange tank and two slender white boosters. So why don't we keep calling it Shuttle? It honours the central role Space Shuttle played in NASA's post-Apollo spaceflight operations and in the directly derivative hardware heritage of the new vehicle. Plus Orion-Shuttle just sounds awesome!

What do you guys think? Could SLS be recognized as a continuation of Space Shuttle, just with a nifty new Orion spacecraft on top? (oh and DCSS)

[Bill Phil]

It's not all that related. Almost completely new structures are needed for the core. Tbh, they should have designed the Space Shuttle like the Energia-Buran. The Ext should be able to operate on its own.

Why not Neptune IV?

[UmbralRaptor]

The correct name is Senate Launch System.

Though I suppose one could call it a Delta V, since it uses the same upper stage, and the SRB + hydrogen core shows some similarities. (Even though it dropped the Ares 5's RS-68s in favor of SSMEs)

Edited March 9, 2015 by UmbralRaptor

[Coam]

I think to most people the Shuttle is the Shuttle Orbiter, the boosters and ET being ignored.

I liked the sound of Ess-Tee-Ess personally. SLS isn't so good sounding, but the way it feels sort of off feels appropriate for the general state of space travel feeling off at the present. We developed a moon-rocket, ditched it for a shuttle, then ditched the shuttle for what looks like (but is very different from) a retrofitted Apollo with shuttle boosters strapped to it, feeling like we've gone full circle in a confusing way.

If SLS has part of the rocket coloured orange like the ET then treating it as a Shuttle derivative would feel more natural to me. Perhaps SLS - Space Launch Shuttle? Or abandoning the acronym, something conveying a message that is essentially "Space Payload Shuttle." - the Launch vehicle is expendable, but it shuttles payload into orbit reliably.

Orion-Shuttle is quite nice, being distinct from just "Shuttle" while keeping it in there. I can see it being truncated to just Orion, but considering this is similar to what happened with Shuttle vs Shuttle Orbiter, maybe that's natural.

Edited March 9, 2015 by Coam

[Pipcard]

The correct name is Senate Launch System.

Though I suppose one could call it a Delta V, since it uses the same upper stage, and the SRB + hydrogen core shows some similarities. (Even though it dropped the Ares 5's RS-68s in favor of SSMEs)

Then there will be confusions ("Delta 5" or "change in velocity"?)

[billbobjebkirk]

Here's an NSF discussion on the topic: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30009.0

[Newt]

All of the Orion launches will be called Orion, as that is what the bulk of people will find interesting. I think that the same will go for most of the other missions, too. If they are interesting enough, the public will care about the thing on the top, not the rocket itself (does Delta-IV have a catchy name?). As was sort of gotten at on the NSF thread (thanks billbobjebkirk), mostly people referred to the Shuttle as the Space Shuttle, essentially the payload, not the name of the whole launch system, STS.

[UmbralRaptor]

Then there will be confusions ("Delta 5" or "change in velocity"?)

That's why it would be an amusing name. (If unlikely to ever be used)

[dryer_lint]

The correct name is Senate Launch System.

I just got a vivid mental image of the Senate being placed on top of the SLS, and launched.

[K^2]

I just got a vivid mental image of the Senate being placed on top of the SLS, and launched.

Hm. It does have sufficient payload capacity... It will be a tight squeeze, and there won't be much in terms of life support, but one complete U.S. Senate to low Earth orbit is entirely within reason even for Block I.

[Bill Phil]

Hm. It does have sufficient payload capacity... It will be a tight squeeze, and there won't be much in terms of life support, but one complete U.S. Senate to low Earth orbit is entirely within reason even for Block I.

What's that? A couple dozen tonnes at most? I wonder if it could do all of congress?

[Nibb31]

But maybe there is a better solution. SLS uses the same rocket engines, the same tank hardware (slightly stretched), and the same SRBs (also stretched to five-segments) as Space Shuttle. Aside from ditching the Orbiter for an in-line stack (and putting the RS-25s where they should be) it is almost the same vehicle. The core of the vehicle will still be a big orange tank and two slender white boosters. So why don't we keep calling it Shuttle? It honours the central role Space Shuttle played in NASA's post-Apollo spaceflight operations and in the directly derivative hardware heritage of the new vehicle. Plus Orion-Shuttle just sounds awesome!

A Shuttle is a a vehicle used to travel back and forth over an established, often short route. Orion/SLS is designed for exactly the opposite. Why would you want to call it a Shuttle?

Also, there really isn't much in common between SLS and STS. Just about everything is new or reworked. The idea of a "shuttle-derived" launcher has been dead and buried for a while now.

[PlonioFludrasco]

The idea of a "shuttle-derived" launcher has been dead and buried for a while now.

Was that the Ares rocket?

[Kryten]

Was that the Ares rocket?

Any number of concepts from the 80s onwards, from Shuttle-C to Ares to Liberty. This does officially include SLS, even if it's going to end sharing little more than a tank diameter and one engine model.

[Kibble]

Any number of concepts from the 80s onwards, from Shuttle-C to Ares to Liberty. This does officially include SLS, even if it's going to end sharing little more than a tank diameter and one engine model.

Is it really that different from Space Shuttle?

[Kryten]

Is it really that different from Space Shuttle?

It will be. Shuttle-derived boosters aren't being entered for the advanced booster competition (for Block II onward), the RS-25s are being simplified for expendable use, and the tank structure is almost completely different due to the forces being applied in different areas.

[vger]

I just got a vivid mental image of the Senate being placed on top of the SLS, and launched.

Yeah, I was thinking, "sounds like NASA just solved the nation's biggest problem."

[UmbralRaptor]

What's that? A couple dozen tonnes at most? I wonder if it could do all of congress?

Without life support, easily. (If we assume 80 kg per congressperson, then 535 of them run just under 43 tonnes)

Was that the Ares rocket?

Not just Ares I/IV/V. Examples go clear back to the Shuttle C

[Voyager55]

Expensive Waste of Money That Will Never Go Anywhere That Exists for the Sole Purpose of Making Jobs, or the "EWMTWNGA-TEFTSPMJ"

[Nibb31]

Making jobs in the space industry isn't exactly without merit. Would you rather have those smart people sitting around unemployed wasting their experience, or would you rather have them working on something? It would be a bit of a shame for a country to waste all that brain power.

[Dkmdlb]

(If we assume 80 kg per congressperson, then 535 of them run just under 43 tonnes)

Does that mean we might be able to get them all the way up to a GEO or even a graveyard orbit?

XD

[-Velocity-]

Ok, something I've never quite understood-

Originally, Orion was going to be launched by this little thing called the Ares I. Now, we're going to launch it with this gigantic rocket called the SLS. I understand that Ares V was going to launch Orion to LEO and that SLS can launch Orion at least to the Moon.

1) I'm surprised that such a huge rocket is needed to send Orion to the Moon, as compared to the Ares V. Heck, I think the first stage of the Ares V was going to essentially be just ONE of the SRBs on the SLS. That's a massive increase in size. Isn't the SLS overkill for launching Orion?

2) What if we want to launch Orion to LEO?

Edited March 9, 2015 by |Velocity|

[Bill Phil]

Correction: Ares I

It didn't have the payload capacity.

[Kryten]

Originally, Orion was going to be launched by this little thing called the Ares I. Now, we're going to launch it with this gigantic rocket called the SLS. I understand that Ares V was going to launch Orion to LEO and that SLS can launch Orion at least to the Moon.

Ares I and V are not equivalent. Ares I was an LEO vehicle, Ares V comparable to SLS. Orion would have been launched on either depending on mission. In practice, Ares I underperformed and couldn't put Orion in orbit without major weight savings, hence cancellation.

1) I'm surprised that such a huge rocket is needed to send Orion to the Moon, as compared to the Ares V. Heck, I think the first stage of the Ares V was going to essentially be just ONE of the SRBs on the SLS. That's a massive increase in size. Isn't the SLS overkill for launching Orion?

It's about the same size as Ares V. In the initial configuration it's enough to send Orion to lunar orbit, in expanded configurations enough for Orion and more cargo (a lander perhaps).

2) What if we want to launch Orion to LEO?

We don't.

[Voyager55]

Making jobs in the space industry isn't exactly without merit. Would you rather have those smart people sitting around unemployed wasting their experience, or would you rather have them working on something? It would be a bit of a shame for a country to waste all that brain power.

True, but it's kind of clear that not very much will become of Orion and the SLS.