The First SLS Launch- To Man, Or Not To Man?

[Jacob01]

Even when I launch a new system/rocket/(anything else that I haven't done before in that way) I do a complete unmanned mission first. If I succeed I do the same thing with crew, if I don't succeed, well.... I try to fix the problem (and start the process again).

You see, I wish I could do that, but Jeb threatens to set the SRB factory on fire if I don't let him be the first Kerbal to test a new rocket. He is just so addicted to explosions...

[CluelessModeler]

I don't even launch the first version of my Kerbal Ships manned... I wouldn't dare attempt it with Astronauts!!!

Simulations and "ratings" only go so far. Remember, it was considered a "Low Priority Issue" that O-Rings in the Shuttle SRB's would flex and not seal properly. I'm not trying to down NASA, but the first flight of an untested system shouldn't be manned.

I believe that the Shuttle was different because it was, arguably, the most technologically sophisticated machine built at the time.

However, as you noted, we have come a long way in Automation since STS-1. But, lets not forget, we did unmanned tests during the R&D phase of the Apollo Program too. It's not a stretch in the least bit to assume that we couldn't do the same thing with SLS.

All-in-all, I still think we shouldn't be rushing into this all-up testing. I'd be perfectly fine if we miss the deadline for a 2017 launch. I'd much rather see funding go to programs that the SLS could actually launch. (Hint: We're not putting any research into that, at least not that is well known.)

[3_bit]

I think we could really go either way.

The only real possible issue is in the rocket itself or the capsule.

The Columbia & Challenger disasters were caused by damaged heat tiles and weather beyond manufacturer recommended limits, respectively. As I see it as long as we do a few LES evaluations and computer simulations of launch and landing, everything should turn out fine.

Might I suggest Kerbal Space Program as the software of choice for "computer simulations"?

[passinglurker]

I think its possible to have it both ways. By 2017 we could conceivably have manned launch capability via either spaceX, boeing, or SNC so what could be done is they launch a minimal crew via a proven means and then launch the SLS unmanned(possibly with some of its unused seats filled with proven backup life support solutions). With the riskiest part out of the way you then have the two craft rendezvous in orbit, transfer the crew over and kick off for lunar shenanigans. After that the question then becomes do you use the orion for reentry or do you rendezvous with a proven craft again to bring the crew home?

[Wahgineer]

The first Saturn V launch was unmanned, for the purpose of safety. Since we'll now be dealing with a similarly sized, similarly powerful vehicle, which we haven't done for a little less than 50 years, it is best to send it up empty. Bedsides. I think saying that NASA is launching a 200+ foot tall rocket is going to attract quite a bit of attention.

[Horn Brain]

Nah. As much as I believe in NASA and SLS (it's a very traditional rocket), if something goes wrong, it could get the entire program cancelled. I can't imagine a scenario where the LES couldn't save the astronauts, but still. It would be a PR disaster, and it would set NASA back quite a while.

There are lots of ways to die that LES can't save the crew from. This is a lunar orbital flight, after all. Something like Apollo 13 is the biggest danger, I would think, since a malfunction in the service module's engine after lunar orbital insertion leaves the crew stranded.

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the first test of an Apollo LEM's soft lunar landing capability was manned.

[SargeRho]

Not quite. Only the landing itself was first tested manned. Apollo 8 or 10 descended to 8km above the surface of the moon and then went back up. While those were manned, they had a pretty good idea of how likely they were to go kerbal before actually landing.

Edited February 22, 2014 by SargeRho

[Kryten]

Not quite. Only the landing itself was first tested manned. Apollo 8 or 10 descended to 8km above the surface of the moon and then went back up. While those were manned, they had a pretty good idea of how likely they were to go kerbal before actually landing.

They also did initial testing of the LM itself completely uncrewed (Apollo 5), including propulsive tests roughly equivalent to landing and return.

[Red Iron Crown]

Not quite. Only the landing itself was first tested manned.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

[DAL59]

Looks like its unmanned.

[tater]

EM-1 has been unmanned for a while., they won't even have a flight article (all up) by mid 2020, anyway (parts are unfinished on EM-1, like life support).

[sh1pman]

At first I was like “SLS launch date in 2017, wat”, but then I saw that this thread is ancient. Was it really supposed to be launched last year? And @DAL59, that’s one hell of a necropost.

[DAL59]

7 minutes ago, sh1pman said:

At first I was like “SLS launch date in 2017, wat”, but then I saw that this thread is ancient. Was it really supposed to be launched last year? And @DAL59, that’s one hell of a necropost.

I once did a 7 year necropost.

[Frozen_Heart]

Forgot it was going to be launched in 2017. December 2019 atm and I really can't see it hitting that target.

[wumpus]

On 2/22/2014 at 10:25 AM, Red Iron Crown said:

I think the first test of an Apollo LEM's soft lunar landing capability was manned.

The shuttle was tested manned, and deliberately designed as such [can't fly unmanned] to prevent Congress from eliminating the manned space program while still using the shuttle to launch satellites (presumably something only Congress would think sane*).  I can't imagine them kludging the SLS in the same way.  The LEM was basically untestable.

* continuing to pay shuttle costs.  There might exist sane people not willing to pay for manned space travel.