NASA reveals new “heavy-lift� SLS rocket

[Keyes777]

NASA has selected the design of a new Space Launch System that will take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before...

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/september/311991/NASA-unveils-giant-new-rocket-design

I’m sure there is more to it but honestly it seems like they grabbed the old Saturn designs and threw some boosters on it. I suppose the “if it ain’t broke†saying still applies; although 40 years later there must be a better design to work off of.

[Redneck]

Here is a video of SLS I found on youtube. That was posted on orbiter-forums Credit goes to ORB on O-F for the great find

This is going to be one sweet mofo. Ok mod makers,its all yours

[Paul Drye]

Nice video. Their graphics are better than ours, but we have explosions

[rdfox]

Actually, it's quite a bit different. This is closer to an SRB-equipped version of the Saturn INT-20 (http://astronautix.com/lvs/satint20.htm) or the Saturn 2SL/120' SRB variant of the Saturn INT-18 (http://astronautix.com/lvs/satint18.htm) design studies. In terms of size, it's closer to the INT-20, but designwise, it's more like the INT-18, using hydrogen in the first stage instead of kerosene.

Really, the only part that's directly comparable to any of the Saturn designs would be the upper stage, which looks to be very close to the S-IVB, except it'd have to be scaled up, since the Apollo CSM had a diameter of 3.9 meters, while the Orion CSM that this is designed for has a diameter of 5 meters.

I think the biggest reason it 'looks' like a Saturn V is that it has similar roll patterns on it...

[Redneck]

Since the retirement of the shuttles I have been feeling a little empty. This is good news IMO. America's space program Isn't dead after all.

[Ferrit]

Um, does anyone else think it looks rather a lot like the KSP logo i.e. the one top of this page?

[Keyes777]

Roll patterns as well at the entire form/shape of the rocket, as well as the previously mentioned Saturn INT comparisons. Main point being this does not completely “look†like a 'modern day' rocket design we have seen from NASA and other space agencies. Obviously the internals will be new age circuitry, but I really want to know if they have reverted to the Saturn-ish look due to optimal design, or is this a cost-saving effort (in either design and/or operation), or for whatever reason. It’s obviously very possible this is the most ideal design for the function they are trying to perform, but there have been numerous budgeting problems with designing their new series of replacement rockets. You can’t help but wonder if the SLS design has been affected by these problems.

[Redneck]

From what I have read. This is tryed and proven Tech. in an effort to keep costs at a minimum. And a realistic launch date. A 2017 launch date is not to shabby. All the people laid-off from shuttle program I am sure some will be getting a call back. So we have the technology,we have the enigines,crew capsule,the man power,and the funding to get this done. Its just a matter of building it

EDIT: prolly using these modified shuttle boosters

[Andras]

KSP version

[Kryten]

EDIT: prolly using these modified shuttle boosters

Actually it seems they will be using unmodified space shuttle engines; according to this the actual engines from the shuttles themselves will be used in the first batch-the shuttles will end up fitted with replicas.

[Redneck]

yes boosters and engines. Engines that will be destroyed BTW after staging is completed.

[Tiberion]

Great news indeed

NASA is gonna be busy - developing this along with managing their Commercial-Cooperation programs with SpaceX and such, and I think they're still planning on using Atlas to throw stuff at ISS too, ya?

[rdfox]

Actually it seems they will be using unmodified space shuttle engines; according to this the actual engines from the shuttles themselves will be used in the first batch-the shuttles will end up fitted with replicas.

I suspect that this will be one of the first things to change in the six years before the first flight; the Ares V was also intended to use the SSMEs, but it was determined not to be cost-effective in an expendable booster and they substituted a simpler single-use engine. My best guess is that exactly the same thing will happen with the SLS core stage, and in short order.

[Andras]

They already have these SSMEs. They already paid for them. Ares would have to buy new engines.

[rdfox]

And when they run out after seven launches, they're going to have to start buying new ones. Simply put, there's a bunch of good reasons *not* to use the SSME in anything that's not reusable; that's just the biggest one. (How about having to do a Flight Readiness Firing pre-launch 'engine test' before *every flight*?)

[UmbralRaptor]

But will it be the new Constellation/Venturestar/NASP/...?

[sneakeypete]

Well, they may choose to use the existing engines while they develop new ones to try get the launches happening earlier, perhaps. News here mentioned something about a testing program, they're not launching the full sized thing in 2017, though i didn't catch what bits they'd cut out at first.

[icefire]

Why are they using the RS-25's for the first stage? Better off just modifying an RS-68 to make it man rated. Twice the thrust with half the complexity. Could probably ditch the SRB's too if they did...

[rdfox]

Like I said. I suspect the RS-25s will go away in a very early design review, replaced with something more cost-effective like the RS-68.

[Johno]

I agree, although man-rating the RS-68 is far from a trivial operation. There were (last time I checked) 200 changes that need to be made in order to leave the RS-68 suitable for man-rating.

More than that, whilst the thrust of the RS-68 is better, its specific impulse is 10% lower than that of the SSME, and this is really the critical number. So in some respects the SSME is really the better engine.

Incidentally, can anyone explain to me the difference between the SLS and the Areas V? As far as I can see the difference is entirely political . . .

[Tiberion]

I dunno, originally the committee gave the reason for cancelling it as 'It won't be done until almost 2030' Which seemed.. questionable.

I guess it was more expensive since it didn't reuse too much, whereas this new one is, at least at first.

Basically, Bush signed off on Ares, so it had to go. The new one is Obama-approved, so its good!

Using the SRBs from the Shuttle to expedite a launch could keep them from being cancelled, since they would at least be slightly less likely to cancel a program that is actually functional. Maybe.

[rdfox]

The five-segment RSRMs were going to be used on Ares V, too, and are identical in all except nose cap to the one that was (is?) scheduled to fly on the Ares I.

And really, I don't see any of these 'so long range that I can avoid having to actually pay for them during MY administration!' plans ever seeing fruition. The only ways that the US will really do any real exploration again are:

A) Private industry decides there's a profit to be made, and does it themselves, or

Some president pulls a Jack Kennedy and demands, within just a few months of taking office, that NASA get some sort of major exploration program accomplished essentially before the end of his second term, so that even if his successor doesn't want to fund his predecessor's pet project (which he probably won't), the savings in actually canceling the program are minimal, because virtually all the costs have already been paid for. (Witness how Apollo continued under Nixon until they'd used up most of the flight hardware that had been bought and paid for under Kennedy and Johnson.)

Any time a president sets a timeline where the first flight won't come until after he's left office, guaranteed, it's just a political ploy to win votes in Florida and Texas and a couple other districts where the contractors are; unless something unusual happens (like Bush 41 winning in '88, instead of the usual 'eight years, switch parties in the White House' routine), the next president will pull the plug on the program because it's the legacy of his political rival. (Witness canceling the return to the Moon, just as scientists were realizing that the Moon is a hell of a lot more interesting place than an asteroid--but the Moon was Bush 43's idea, and it would have required Obama to pay the bills for a good chunk of it, so there was no way in hell that pet project would be completed--instead, he proposed the asteroid mission to minimize the fallout of canceling the lunar program in those key states.)

[Tiberion]

I dunno, if Obama does get re-elected and serve another 4 years (no comment on whether I think that is good or not) then he'd be there through January 2017. So, if they're *close* to being ready by then, it would be... difficult...to scrap the program.

Besides, there is a fairly good chance that any Republican elected will be pro-space program as its popular with their base, and since Obama has been seen as not space-friendly.

[Keyes777]

It seemed petty when they switched away from Bush’s returning to the moon. I think Obama has changed the long term goal to Mars instead. The biggest problem I have with that move is it feels more like an accomplishment for the sake of accomplishing. No doubt the whole space race started with those ideals, but I want long term-sustained exploration where the main goal is for the benefit of scientific study, and not just to go there for a few missions and never return. Permanent moon exploration/occupancy is the next logical step from having a permanently manned space station. But like you said earlier now it has really just become a political game, make big promises and expect everyone to forget/not care anymore once you’re out of office.

[Pwaa]

( I posted this in another thread, though it means more here )

Sorry if this has been said before but sadly, this is not going to do anything but make jobs. Not much science will be done, but the senators and stuff will be realllllyyyy happy since their districts get special funds and shit from the government since they get to build it. It will cost many billions of dollars - which could by a few thousands of trips on SpaceX's ships, and it will be done in 4, 5 years while SpaceX could launch any day. This is really heartbreaking, NASA should be doing what they want to do- not what will make some government employees happy. All of the 'man to mars' or whatever you are hearing from this is just to get more money to be poured in to someone's pockets. :c

Anyways, here is a video of all of the shuttle flights to make everyone happy again!

Also, I accept any info regarding if my statement is false or I'm just being pessimistic :3 More space missions are better than none!