So what's after the space Shuttle?

[Anizer]

So NASA has cancelled the space shuttle missions about two years ago, so what are they doing now? I know everyone is using the Russian Soyuz rocket to get to the ISS but does anyone know if NASA is developing anything?

[Nibb31]

What about SLS, Orion, and the CCDEV competition? Have you been living under a rock ?

[Canopus]

How can you not know about the SLS and the MPCV?

[Mr Shifty]

A less snarky answer: here's a bunch of information on the SLS, which just completed its Preliminary Design Review:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls-pdr.html

[Horn Brain]

Thanks, Mr. Shifty, for demonstrating the single quantum of patience required to not be a dildo to someone asking a completely legitimate question.

[Canopus]

Thanks, Mr. Shifty, for demonstrating the single quantum of patience required to not be a dildo to someone asking a completely legitimate question.

I was honestly asking.

Someone one is currently making a mod about the SLS http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/41246-WIP-Space-Launch-System-%28SLS%29-and-ORION-%28MPCV%29

Edited August 7, 2013 by Canopus

[Lanfranc]

I'm just going to put this here: http://xkcd.com/1053/

[jwenting]

What about SLS, Orion, and the CCDEV competition? Have you been living under a rock ?

they're all going to end up cancelled.

[SciMan]

Sad, but inevitably true. No new manned launch vehicles have been developed since the space shuttle. With the economy being the way it is, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

-Sci. Don't blame evil when you can blame politics, and don't blame politics when you can blame stupidity.

[Mr Shifty]

they're all going to end up cancelled.

CCDEV has already released some funding to Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada. Dream Chaser is set to do drop and other atmospheric flight tests this summer. DragonRider, I think, will happen no matter what because SpaceX is already flying missions to Alpha. And Boeing has a large lobbying arm, the CST-100 is a fairly conservative design i.e looks like existing technology, it has a great industry partner in Bigelow, and it received the largest award from CCiCap. I think all three have a real shot of becoming real.

NASA has been its usual smart self with the SLS program, distributing development across many states and key Congressional districts. I suspect that it will continue as well.

[M83]

Sad, but inevitably true. No new manned launch vehicles have been developed since the space shuttle. With the economy being the way it is, I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Well the economy is showing signs of improvement here in America as long as financial issues in the EU and China don't drag us down.

And as for there not being anything developed since the Space Shuttle, well it's only been a little over 2 years. The MPCV i.e. Orion capsule has been in development since 2005, as it was part of Project Constellation, and after that was canned it was renamed Orion and continued development, so it was started before the end of the Shuttle program.

I personally have hope for the SLS, MPCV, and CCDev as they all stand a good chance of being almost done around the 2016 elections, so there should be no reason to cancel them unless massive budget issues or delays.

[Mr Shifty]

No new manned launch vehicles have been developed since the space shuttle.

Shenzhou is post-shuttle.

[metaphor]

The first orbital test of the Orion capsule is set for about a year from now, Sept 2014. The 3 commercial crew competitors are probably going to be reduced to 2 next year, and whoever is left will probably start orbital test and crewed flights around 2015. The SLS rocket (with Orion) has its first launch scheduled in 2017, with the first crewed launch 2-4 years later. The SLS should really fly more often, but with the recent budget cuts the schedule slipped back.

[jwenting]

Shenzhou is post-shuttle.

1) we're talking US here, not China

2) Shenzhou is a glossed up Soyuz, a 1970s design.

[jwenting]

CCDEV has already released some funding to Boeing, SpaceX and Sierra Nevada. Dream Chaser is set to do drop and other atmospheric flight tests this summer.

they also funded Venturestar development, Roton, DC-X, and others. All of which were cancelled. Sending some money doesn't guarantee the project will get off the ground, let alone reach maturity and enter production.

[Winter Man]

There's also Skylon. British not American, but who cares. Space access is space access between allies. Hell, even between former enemies (see: USA sending all astronauts up using Soyuz)!

[magnemoe]

they also funded Venturestar development, Roton, DC-X, and others. All of which were cancelled. Sending some money doesn't guarantee the project will get off the ground, let alone reach maturity and enter production.

Venturestar, Roton and DC-X was all SSTO, forget SSTO with chemical rockets, yes its doable however to have something useful you also need to bring an useful cargo and not make an so stressed design you have to do an full overhaul before an new flight.

Something like skylon is an execption but its not an pure rocket ssto.

Orion is an pretty simple design, my main concern is the lack of suitable missions. An moon mission is pretty much the only thing who makes sense.

[jwenting]

yes, they were SSTO, but that's not the point. The point is that NASA can defund a program as quickly and randomly as they fund it.

DC-X was flying, though not yet orbital, when cancelled.

Venturestar was 90%+ complete, waiting for one final component to be rebuilt before it could be tested.

Roton too was flying but not orbital when cancelled.

Each had as much or more potential to yield a viable launch system as the new paper studies currently being funded, yet each was axed and axed after large amounts had been spent, when success was a lot closer than Orion or other current programs are, and each was axed when the economy was a lot better off to support the investment in those programs than it is now (including NASA's budget).

[DerekL1963]

yes, they were SSTO, but that's not the point. The point is that NASA can defund a program as quickly and randomly as they fund it.

DC-X was flying, though not yet orbital, when cancelled.

For certain handwaving values of "flying, though not yet orbital" - it never got over a few hundred feet or a hundred miles an hour or so. (Not that it could go orbital in the first place - that would have been the DC-Y.)

Venturestar was 90%+ complete, waiting for one final component to be rebuilt before it could be tested.

Which *sounds* bad, until you realize the 'one final component' was a *MAJOR* component - the fuel tank. Which showed no signs of being complete anytime soon. (In fact, it took five more years before a sample tank of the same general design and material was successfully tested.)

Roton too was flying but not orbital when cancelled.

So long as disregard the fact that it was flying under helicopter rotors, not over rocket motors and couldn't get higher than a few hundred feet... And that they'd already cancelled the (very problematic) original engine in favor of a lower performance engine (that was itself still in development.) And ignore the fact that they weren't funded by NASA in the first place. (They did however go bankrupt.)

Each had as much or more potential to yield a viable launch system as the new paper studies currently being funded, yet each was axed and axed after large amounts had been spent, when success was a lot closer than Orion or other current programs are, and each was axed when the economy was a lot better off to support the investment in those programs than it is now (including NASA's budget).

Success was a lot closer? Only in the sense that that "Mars (flight testing) is closer than Alpha Centauri (operational flights)", otherwise not so much. But Mars, in all three cases, was still a very long ways off.

[Mr Shifty]

1) we're talking US here, not China

2) Shenzhou is a glossed up Soyuz, a 1970s design.

1. Ah OK; it wasn't specified. I guess I prefer to see space exploration and science as human rather than national endeavors.

2. One could just as easily say that the MPCV is a glossed up Apollo, a 1960's design. Soyuz rockets have launched successfully over 1700 times (compare to Atlas's 500 or so), including 118 crewed launches. There hasn't been a major crewed Soyuz incident since 1983 when Soyuz T-10-1 exploded on the launch pad (the crew successfully used the escape system), and no deaths since 1971 when the Soyuz 11 capsule depressurized during preparations for re-entry. It may be 1970's technology (and it has, of course been upgraded continuously since the 1970's), but it's a pretty reliable and versatile rocket and spacecraft.

[Diche Bach]

A less snarky answer: here's a bunch of information on the SLS, which just completed its Preliminary Design Review:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls-pdr.html

LOL, it wasn't until yesterday's Wiki surfing session that I knew the International Space Station had been continuously in operation for 12 years ! I mean sure I had heard of it, and knew it was 'up there (at least sometimes?).

Everything is trivia from a given perspective.

1. Ah OK; it wasn't specified. I guess I prefer to see space exploration and science as human rather than national endeavors.

2. One could just as easily say that the MPCV is a glossed up Apollo, a 1960's design. Soyuz rockets have launched successfully over 1700 times (compare to Atlas's 500 or so), including 118 crewed launches. There hasn't been a major crewed Soyuz incident since 1983 when Soyuz T-10-1 exploded on the launch pad (the crew successfully used the escape system), and no deaths since 1971 when the Soyuz 11 capsule depressurized during preparations for re-entry. It may be 1970's technology (and it has, of course been upgraded continuously since the 1970's), but it's a pretty reliable and versatile rocket and spacecraft.

So here is a somewhat tongue-in-cheek question: Why not just buy and use Soyuz? Or just keep using Soyuz and ISS via Baikonur based on the existing treaties for that matter? It seems to be working right now, right?

I could see the bureaucratic/technical/economic issues involved in having to get our projects/people onto Russian rocket launches as being one possible "real" reason to not just rely on Soyuz and Baikonur.

But I wouldn't be surprised if "national pride" were in fact a significant part of why NASA and certain elements of the U.S. want to have a replacement for the Space Shuttle. That combined with an interest on the part of U.S. firms to get a piece of the pie so to speak . . . NOT saying either one of those motivations are 'evil' nor even for that matter 'bad.' I myself am a bit of a patriotic profiteer.

But on the other hand, the fact that we have for quite some time now been cooperating with the Soviets . . . *Ahems!* . . I mean _Russians_ is a rather mindbogglingly GOOD development from the standpoint of our historical international relations. Anything that moves long time former enemies closer to being bosom permanent pals is a good thing I say.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Diche Bach

[Lanfranc]

For a more general overview of the direction of US space policy, I'd suggest looking at the 2009 Augustine Report, and the President's speech at KSC in 2010.

[Mr Shifty]

LOL, it wasn't until yesterday's Wiki surfing session that I knew the International Space Station had been continuously in operation for 12 years ! I mean sure I had heard of it, and knew it was 'up there (at least sometimes?).

Yeah, I hear you. I started playing KSP in May and to that point most of my exposure to space concepts and programs was from reading science fiction (oh and 15 years ago, I saw Jim Lovell give a talk at my college.) Because of KSP, over the last couple months I've read several books on the space program, watched documentaries, perused countless Wikipedia articles, become a daily visitor to Space.com, started playing Orbiter, stood outside with my 6 year old daughter finding constellations and watching the ISS fly overhead: in short dived in with my usual enthusiasm for subjects I'm interested in, but know little about. Aside from the huge amount of enjoyment I've gotten from playing this game, its ability to stimulate curiosity and teach without seeming to are phenomenal achievements.

And the ISS; what an amazing human achievement. Here's a great video tour of the habitable areas. (I've watched the whole thing twice: my 6 y/o watched it with me once and was fascinated the whole time.)

[Jackissimus]

its ability to stimulate curiosity and teach without seeming to are phenomenal achievements

This should be a blurb on the game's main site. And my thinking exactly!

[Diche Bach]

Aside from the huge amount of enjoyment I've gotten from playing this game, its ability to stimulate curiosity and teach without seeming to are phenomenal achievements.

Yes very much indeed! I have worked in education most of my life and I have slowly developed a vague idea that there is tremendous untapped potential in applying computer games or other interactive problem solving technology to education. KSP, for a commercial product that is clearly being presented merely as a "game" is amazingly successful at moving toward this revolutionary goal. I still couldn't handle the maths behind most of this. But having played this, I've learned more about classical mechanics than I ever might have learned by jumping into the maths headfirst. That probably sets me up to get much MORE of a 'traditional' technical approach to such topics.

And the ISS; what an amazing human achievement. Here's a great video tour of the habitable areas. (I've watched the whole thing twice: my 6 y/o watched it with me once and was fascinated the whole time.)

Indeed! A truly amazing human achievement. It is particularly edifying to see so many nations cooperating so efficiently and effectively for so long, up there in the heavens. It perhaps suggests that 'we can all get along' after all, which is inspiring!

ADDIT: Wow fascinating video! I'm actually a bit surprised at how cluttered everything is on the inside, though the barcode reader thing made it all make a lot more sense. I'd think there would be a risk of doing something dangerous by accidentally grabbing something or flipping a lever what with all those cables and hoses and stuff dangling all over the place.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Diche Bach