SLS or Constellation?

[Kryten]

That was the main reason I wanted it. But I was hoping for a small one, for a model rocket.

I simply don't think you get liquid engines in model-rocket sizes. If you want something small and liquid, I suppose you could polish up on your serbian and try and get one of the cruise missile model 'plane sized jet engines those same fellows are selling.

[B787_300]

you are not going to be able to get a small one with out making it yourself. A hybrid engine might be something you look into though.

[karolus10]

Any of poll answers aren't worth selecting.

Both SLS and Ares V is based on old idea (1978 !?) of shuttle-derived launch system's... idea wasn't bad, because it uses components and technologies developed and manufactured for space shuttle fleet (witch was intended to be just first generation of vast shuttle fleet ) and would supplement Saturn rockets to compensate shuttle lack of heavy lift capabilities.

Shuttle-derived launch system would be successful when developed in parallel (or soon after shuttle) with shuttle fleet - space station, much larger than ISS could be launched and assembled quite fast with just few of these rockets.

But let's face it - it's 30 years later, shuttle fleet go to museum already and it's no economic reason to use "discontinued" space shuttle hardware (like reusable shuttle main engines) like in 80s vs designing from scratch cheaper, expendable rocket.

EDIT_1:

Anyway, this NASA missions to asteroids aren't so bad - it's better than doing nothing.

Edited April 24, 2013 by karolus10

[Rune]

That was the main reason I wanted it. But I was hoping for a small one, for a model rocket.

I decided on the SLS. Because, apparently, NASA and Bigelow have signed a contract, that have a pretty high chance of leading to Commerical Moonbases. I can imagine NASA ferrying people to hte moon using Golden Spike landers to a Commerical Bigelow moonbase.

I like asteriod plan nao.

I just read the agreement you refer to: more paper studies, not a cent changes hands, and no one commits to any real metal-bending. So it might be good PR, but I wouldn't be holding my breath for a moonbase.

As to liquid rockets, if you have access to a lathe or something similar, I would just try to build my own. You will learn a gazillion times more, you can make it small so you don't blow your house up when (not if) something goes wrong, and you can choose safer fuels and oxidizers. Like hydrogen peroxide and alcohol, I recommend starting there. Pressure-fed is also way easier and safer.

[Rune]

Here's the eBay listing. Recommended as a museum piece, but that's explicitly for liability reasons; it definitely wasn't deactivated. It's 1957 technology, so I don't think even ITAR would apply, and it's internal US so no awkward questions at customs. Would have some trouble getting some of the ingredients for that fuel mixture without ending up on a watchlist though.

EDIT: Had a look through that eBay category ('complete engines'). No more rockets, but did find a working jet engine with afterburner. Including this gem;

Amazing what you can get on the internet these days.

Rune. Mom, can I have a rocket engine for christmas?

[karolus10]

"is it really the way to build space program ??"

Good question... look at 07:30s .

[Rune]

Nelson on that video: "NASA is being flatlined". I know he didn't mean to say that, but for once a politician actually spoke the truth. As in, there's no heartbeat and the patient is slipping.

Rune. Not their fault, really, NASA does what it's told by Congress.

[Thaniel]

So NASA is experiencing the symptoms of a corrupt, incompetent bunch og egoists lacking motivation and entusiasm. Yeah, I can see that. Too bad the result seems to be even more economy-driven private enterprises, going for cheapest possible sollution.

Not now though, those pushing the envelope now have the ambition and entusiasm, but when they retire, I doubt their companies will be run in the same way with their new leaders.

[Naelo]

Sorry if I'm asking something stupid here, but I don't get what the point of SLS is.

The Saturn V rocket in 1989 carried 120 tons to LEO.

Is SLS THAT much cheaper or are these extra 10 tons really that much worth it?

As for the poll, I think it's redundant because if SLS is being finished it'll do the stuff that Constellation would have done...

[Kryten]

If you wanted to make Saturn V again you'd have to rebuild every single piece of tooling for the entire rocket. SLS is almost certainly cheaper than doing that.

[B787_300]

but sls is a mix of both SaturnV and Space Shuttle so there is not a common tooling set

[Kryten]

It's got shuttle ET diameter tanks, shuttle engines, and shuttle srbs. How does saturn come into it?

[B787_300]

the upper stage has the J2x powerplant which is saturn era, and the tanks from that stage

[Rune]

Sorry if I'm asking something stupid here, but I don't get what the point of SLS is.

The Saturn V rocket in 1989 carried 120 tons to LEO.

Is SLS THAT much cheaper or are these extra 10 tons really that much worth it?

As for the poll, I think it's redundant because if SLS is being finished it'll do the stuff that Constellation would have done...

Actually, it is 50 tons less, at least on the Block I, which is likely the only one that will fly, if it even flies. Yeah, 70mT and 2-3 billion a year to get there. And they call that progress.

Rune. Then again, as a jobs program, it's perfect, most of the money goes to pay salaries.

[Kryten]

What kind of attitude is that? Anything is progress compared to the Saturn V, because it no longer exists. There's no point stopping programs if they don't instantly produce something like you had in the 60s, no matter how bloated the budget for initially developing those things was.

[Holo]

Remember that the Saturn V was built on a budget 9 times larger.

[czokletmuss]

And this was a war substitute with the Soviets - the whole space program was a propagand which political system is the superior one.

[nothke]

To me, both of the programs are silly.. When I heard Constellation is canceled, I thought.. No way, all those R&D they've done is going down the drain? I have a feeling they will just rewrite some papers and resurrect the program.. What exactly happened. The only difference is the slightly different program and Shuttle derived launchers. ConsteSLSation xD

But in my opinion the only guy who profits here is Elon Musk, and that guy has BALLS! He wants to make launchers that return to the launch complex and land... That is crazy! And not just crazy like "mad", but they'll actually do it! The government should give all the resources to him and combine Const.-SLS-Orion knowledge with SpaceX. Then they should build very reliable, reusable and cheap launchers. After that you can go anywhere you want

[aquilux]

I agree with this in spirit. NASA, considering it's diminished funding and capabilities should be focused on larger organizational goals like running the space station and organising long range missions, rather than the shorter term of designing launch systems and performing routine flights. Almost all launch and LEO functionalities can be done cheaper commercially now anyway.

I see NASA's role going forward as similar to that of a general contractor, with science being the motivating party. Need a new satellite? Commission a corporation with experience. Need a launch? Hire cost effective launch company. Have a problem? Issue an open challenge, ideas will come out in droves. Just filter out the best, and select from them.

NASA should be focused on continually expanding our sphere of influence, doing the things that have never been done before and can't be done by anyone else, and not distracted by the small details that others have matched and improved upon already.

[RuBisCO]

I would vote neither at this time. Certifiably SLS should have been pursued from day one (not Constellation) because a cheaper direct derivative of the space shuttle would have had great chances of making it to operational status, Constellation was simply too expensive. Another problem is companies like ULA and their lobbyist have learn over the decades how to game the system and drain every dollar they can out of a projects like this. A rocket designed by legislator would be grossly inferior and overpriced: the space shuttle is prime example. At this point the best hope is to have private companies compete directly in designing, building and launching rockets. It is my hope that SLS will hobble along for a few more years until it too is cancelled and then SpaceX and ULA compete directly for a heavy life booster.

Now I'm not a SpaceX fanboy, I have hope but no confidence they will pull through, heck they got to do 10 launches this next year in order to stay profitable, good luck! Even so the Falcon 9 heavy ~50 tons to LEO is only 2/3 to 1/3 SLS capacity but this is not the 1960's we have the experience and technology for some degree of space assembly and even refueling as well as high ISP orbital propulsion options, in short if and when the Falcon 9 heavy is in operation the SLS may become useless or at least not worth the money for more development. At which point it should be dropped as a goverment project and ULA and ATK could pick up the pieces and make it a commercial rocket if it can compete against the Falcon 9 heavy.

[Nibb31]

How did you manage to dig up a thread that was 9 months old?

[mdatspace]

Constellation(Or CxP), while it had a general plan(ISS, Moon then Mars), was trying to do Apollo the second without Apollo funding and public support. NASA did not get additional funding. Ares 1&Orion had technical problems, meaning the cost estimates could not be made.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf

CxP was given an insufficient budget to operate and mitigate technical risks. Funding shortfalls were projected to last from 2009 to 2012. CxP didn't last that long. Ares V would have flown by 2019, if things went to plan. In reality, Ares V would have flown in the mid 2020's, as found by the Augustine commission.

I think of constellation as over-budget and behind schedule, and rightfully canceled. But it was not NASA's fault. NASA was strapped with an ambitious program akin to Apollo, but had to do so on a much smaller budget and had complications in its way.

[Hailstorm]

All things considered, the most important part of Constellation was the Orion spacecraft, which survived the cancellation. At this point, it would be unwise to mess with launcher programs any more. Let the SLS run its course, get back the manned launch capability first. Altair can be resurrected if going back to the Moon is re-considered. The Mars stuff didn't leave the drawing board anyway, and if/when they do, the SLS is just as adaptable to them as the Ares-V.

[Brotoro]

I would have preferred Constellation with double the budget. But nobody asked me.

[CalculusWarrior]

I agree, having the Orion spacecraft remain in pretty much the same form as it was under Constellation is the best part of the new plan for space exploration. I have a funny feeling that if SLS does get cancelled, the capsule will survive and continue development under the next plan for space exploration by the US government. I do hope SLS actually is built though. It is a very pretty rocket, and looks suspiciously similar to KSP's logo.