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

[NASAFanboy]

As the launch date for the Space Launch System in 2017 rolls closer, one question has been making its daily rounds throughout the top levels of the NASA Administration.

Should they crew EM-1 or not?

Following Mr. Gerstenmaier confirmation that the pacing item for the first crewed mission was the development of the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) and related budget constraints for Orion, Mr. Bowersox claimed it “will not excite people†to launch an uncrewed EM-1 mission in order to save funds in the short term human rating drive.

For those who don't know, in 2017, NASA will be launching the first Space Launch System HLV rocket that will carry a man-rated Orion MPCV spacecraft on an circumlunar trajectory. But wait, there is a catch. Because, you see, the first SLS launch in 2017 will be...unmanned (I can already hear the groaning in the audience of viewing forumers. Much anticlimax). However, not all are happy with an unmanned mission. Already in the NASA ranks, there is an movement to make EM-1 an manned launch. Of course, being me, I decided to take this question to the forumers. So, should Exploration Mission One be an manned launch? Why or why not?

Here's a list of pros and cons.

+PROS+

1. It will deliver the first human crew beyond LEO on a lunar flyby on 2017, and still preserve the launch schedule for the Asteroid Retrival Mission in 2021.

2. It will increase public awareness about NASA's Space Launch System and help fuel a drive that will end in a manned landing expedition to Mars.

3. It will test out many new technologies and give the SLS an more effective "man-rating".

-CONS-

1. The SLS is untested before 2017, and this is its first launch. Many things could go wrong, and its even worse with an crew onboard.

2. Having the crew may delay the launch by several weeks or months.

3. If the Space Launch System fails us, we won't go to Mars for another five years.

[Albert VDS]

1st launch should always be unmanned. There are a tons of reasons, but the best one is; If anything would go wrong and the crew is lost, then the whole project would be put on hold due to investigations and it would even be possible that it would be canceled.

[Simon Ross]

Nasa's own SOP is that whenever possible, any first flight of an untried system will be an unmanned launch

Hence, it will be unmanned

[Thiel]

Even NASA knows you can only take all up testing so far.

[Kilmeister]

I think having a manned first launch is way too risky in the PR/Politics department. Sure having a manned crew would bring in some positive PR, but a fatal incident could kill the entire program. We've come a long way in automation since STS-1, so even capsule planned for humans doesn't really need humans for it to be tested.

[Omicron314]

How do an unmanned test to orbit, and then a manned circumlunar test? Or better yet, two circumlunar tests: one manned and one unmanned!

[DonLorenzo]

Let's have a look at your listed PRO's

1. It would deliver the first crew beyond LEO since the lunar missions. What actual purpose does that serve though? It'll be a shakedown cruise all the way, and any systems verification they want to do can be done unmanned as well. Should the need to fix something come up (which, aside from exploration and experimentation is a big pro of having crewed flights) that would be a result (ie. X went wrong!) that's perfectly obtainable unmanned. Sending people along 'just because' doesn't ring true and reasonable to me. Although it would be cooler, that I agree with. But that's not reason enough.

2. Will it? If all goes well that 'extra awareness' will happen just as well with the subsequent crewed launch. If all not goes well... well, public awareness would certainly be huge then, but not in the way you're imagining

3. I don't see how it will give it a 'better man-rating'. I don't know the details of what such a rating entails, but I'm pretty sure it's not just (and goed beyond) 'people went on this and survived once, you know'. What new technologies would it test out that an unmanned flight wouldn't?

As you can probably tell, I don't particularly agree with many of your PRO's; I feel the launch should most definitely be unmanned

[SargeRho]

I'd say no. You shouldn't ever man the first launch of a new rocket.

[Justy]

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not "man-rating" means anything. If it does, then you must test it unmanned before putting people in it. If it's okay to put people in an unproven rocket, then let's quit pretending otherwise.

Personally, I believe in unmanned tests, as did the people building every crewed system other than Shuttle:

Vostok was a well tested spy satellite with a driver's seat installed, and a proven launcher. Voskhod was a modification to that.

Mercury had numerous unmanned flights, both to test the capsule itself using custom-made test launchers and the full Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas stacks.

Gemini-Titan had two unmanned test flights before manned flights.

Apollo, Saturn I and Saturn V all had unmanned tests both independently and together.

Soyuz launched three times (one failure) unmanned before the first manned flight... and in the end, the first flight proved they should have done more unmanned tests.

I think the Buran-Energia program had it right. Fly the launcher, fly the launcher and the spacecraft unmanned, then consider putting people in it. In Buran's case that never happened, for reasons. But I think the method was sound.

If SLS fails, maybe you're right, it'll set a potential, hypothetical, uncommitted, unfunded Mars program back by five years. But if SLS kills people in its first flight, it's going to set American manned spaceflight as a whole back a lot further than that.

[Deathsoul097]

I'd say no. You shouldn't ever man the first launch of a new rocket.

100% Agreed. Pull a Russia, unmanned for the first flight.

I guess it comes down to the question of whether or not "man-rating" means anything. If it does, then you must test it unmanned before putting people in it. If it's okay to put people in an unproven rocket, then let's quit pretending otherwise.

Personally, I believe in unmanned tests, as did the people building every crewed system other than Shuttle:

Vostok was a well tested spy satellite with a driver's seat installed, and a proven launcher. Voskhod was a modification to that.

Mercury had numerous unmanned flights, both to test the capsule itself using custom-made test launchers and the full Mercury-Redstone and Mercury-Atlas stacks.

Gemini-Titan had two unmanned test flights before manned flights.

Apollo, Saturn I and Saturn V all had unmanned tests both independently and together.

Soyuz launched three times (one failure) unmanned before the first manned flight... and in the end, the first flight proved they should have done more unmanned tests.

I think the Buran-Energia program had it right. Fly the launcher, fly the launcher and the spacecraft unmanned, then consider putting people in it. In Buran's case that never happened, for reasons. But I think the method was sound.

If SLS fails, maybe you're right, it'll set a potential, hypothetical, uncommitted, unfunded Mars program back by five years. But if SLS kills people in its first flight, it's going to set American manned spaceflight as a whole back a lot further than that.

Buran was cancelled because of the economical collapse of the USSR, unfortunately. If it had continued, we may have had a 100% reueseable (Excluding Fuel of course.) HLV/Space Shuttle now. (Look up the Energia-Uragan plans if you don't believe me.)

Edited February 19, 2014 by Deathsoul097

[Kilmeister]

Even though the US was 17 - 0 last year in launching rockets, they were only 12 - 1 in 2012. Wasn't a catastrophic failure, but still was unable to complete mission objectives.

Worldwide Failure Rate:

2013: 3.8%

2012: 8.3%

But 2012 Numbers are a little higher because we had a newcomer(Iran) fail twice.

[NASAFanboy]

Let's have a look at your listed PRO's

1. It would deliver the first crew beyond LEO since the lunar missions. What actual purpose does that serve though? It'll be a shakedown cruise all the way, and any systems verification they want to do can be done unmanned as well. Should the need to fix something come up (which, aside from exploration and experimentation is a big pro of having crewed flights) that would be a result (ie. X went wrong!) that's perfectly obtainable unmanned. Sending people along 'just because' doesn't ring true and reasonable to me. Although it would be cooler, that I agree with. But that's not reason enough.

2. Will it? If all goes well that 'extra awareness' will happen just as well with the subsequent crewed launch. If all not goes well... well, public awareness would certainly be huge then, but not in the way you're imagining

3. I don't see how it will give it a 'better man-rating'. I don't know the details of what such a rating entails, but I'm pretty sure it's not just (and goed beyond) 'people went on this and survived once, you know'. What new technologies would it test out that an unmanned flight wouldn't?

As you can probably tell, I don't particularly agree with many of your PRO's; I feel the launch should most definitely be unmanned

Most of the "pros" aren't even mine.

They're half-baked examples I stole word for word off the news website.

Personally, I wish for EM-1 to launch in 2016, with an follow-on mission in 2017. There is many speculation among the NASA staff as to when to launch, a good number want 2016.

Wish I could change my vote.

[Jacob01]

No. As a few people have pointed out, the first launch should never be manned- unless its a Kerbal rocket... Anyway, back on topic. Anything could go wrong, delaying, or possibly even leading to the cancellation of the program, which no one wants. Although, I guess something could go wrong on any launch. But something is more likely to go wrong on the first one, so the first should definitely be unmanned.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Umanned first always. As much as I want to see a manned lunar mission, it can wait.

[Komonyi]

I think lauching it manned is not so bad, especially if I will ride it:P

It can be a secret that I'm there, so if it fails, nobody will care about it, but if it doesn't, I will have a lot of fun up there. I think the risk would worth it for me. And I probably would be more useful than dead weight so NASA wins too.

Unfortunately even thinking about this is a dream:(

[bigdad84]

I nominate for manned! Any person getting in that capsule knows what could potentially become of them. If anything were to happen, with most possible failures happening in the first few minutes of launch, the crew could be easily saved by the Launch Escape System. Now SLS in general is a waste of money in my opinion and NASA should of kept the concept of Constellation by separating crew and cargo... But that's a conversation for another day.

[lajoswinkler]

Absolutely not. The opposite would be foolish and absurd.

[SkyHook]

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.

[goldenpeach]

No. As a few people have pointed out, the first launch should never be manned- unless its a Kerbal rocket... Anyway, back on topic. Anything could go wrong, delaying, or possibly even leading to the cancellation of the program, which no one wants. Although, I guess something could go wrong on any launch. But something is more likely to go wrong on the first one, so the first should definitely be unmanned.

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).

[Nibb31]

EM-1 won't be manned because Orion's ECLSS system won't be ready before 2020.

[Komonyi]

EM-1 won't be manned because Orion's ECLSS system won't be ready before 2020.

Ahh, so there is no point to sneak into the capsule before launch. Too bad:(

[Seret]

Unmanned, definitely. You can't put a human on board the first time you try something with a new system.

[NASAFanboy]

EM-1 won't be manned because Orion's ECLSS system won't be ready before 2020.

If EM-1 is manned, then the ECLSS system will be rushed to 2017. NASA can do that, according to the news articles and quote by NASASpaceFlight (Which is, cocidentally, a direct quote of a engineer working on the ECLSS.)

This makes it a little more dangerous, in my opinion.

Don't go to the Moon with untested life support, yes?

[crazyewok]

Not to man.

If it goes wrong and blows up it could mean NASA gets even more of its pitifull budget cut.

[Guest]

Unmanned. The only time a spacecraft's first flight was manned was the Space Shuttle. It's foolish to do this unless there's a very good reason.