What you're looking at here could be the SLS design implementation. It is essentially the Ares V design, but scaled down to reuse virtually all current Shuttle launch components - four segment SSRB, 3 shuttle SSMEs, and the 8 meter tank, rather than the 10m tank found on Ares V.
Really pressing information in the article is the snail-paced schedule of launches; the first launch in 2017/2018 time frame, followed by a 4 (!) year gap to the next launch, and then one launch per year for the schedule. Pretty lame. Perhaps NASA is really betting on commercial sector to provide manned LEO flights.
The US congress also just subpeoned NASA for the hard documents on the SLS, so maybe we'll be seeing the actual rocket and plan soon (if indeed the above is not the case). Any other space aficionados here ... what do you guys think of this whole fiasco?
I think it looks like they don't have enough funding and that is the cause of the "fiasco". I'm sure if they allocated something like say, another $10 billion (roughly how much the DOD spends on air-conditioning in Iraq/Afghanistan every 6 months) it wouldn't be moving at a snails pace.
Really pressing information in the article is the snail-paced schedule of launches; the first launch in 2017/2018 time frame, followed by a 4 (!) year gap to the next launch, and then one launch per year for the schedule. Pretty lame.
By 2017/18 SpaceX would have launched and possibly delivered or flown crew members, and more importantly Bigelow Aerospace would have launched it's 330 model already. Then by 2022 who knows what the two companies as well as others would already have.
So what are law makers going to look for and what is NASA's response on the cost?
What's with you guys, if anything, going to space is fucking cool, and it's not like the marginal funds they'd divert to NASA from the budget would end up "making the world a better place before moving out to space", they'd probably get lost in the system anyways, read "le filling-ze-pockets".
I was a little surprised when on the radio they were going on about how the last "Space Shuttle" had landed for the last time, and I guess this is what they're replacing that technology with.
This picture sums up NASA's budget. When it was considered vital to national security (beat dem Russians!) it spiked. Also I'm sure the article about how we spend more on Air Conditioning in Iraq for soldiers than on NASA as a whole was a great bit of fun for everyone to read.
Also totally hilarious is that public perception is that NASA takes approximately 24% of the Federal budget (as opposed to it's actual ~0.6%). "In other words, respondents believed NASA’s budget approaches that of the Department of Defense, which receives almost 38 times more money."
Just about every dollar goes back to American people or companies. That can't be a bad thing either.
With the ending of the Constellation program and the Orion Spacecraft system I really don't think any new rocket systems will be implemented. Also it isn't NASA that is hoping for the success of the commercial sector, it is actually Congress. NASA would love to be the only space program in the world(besides Soyuz), but Congress and feels the commercial industry is able to take over in the near future.
Personally I feel the same as several other posters and think that the DOD budget just be sliced a tiny bit more in favor of NASA since space exploration is a sort of preemptive defense system if you think far enough in the future.
On July 29 2011 12:15 Ympulse wrote: Just imagine how far along the space program would be if we stopped waging shadow wars and sticking our hands in other people's business.
Just as well, I suppose. Glad to see theyre at least still working
Imagining such a thing is a little ridiculous in my opinion . . .imagine how far science would have gone if there was no religion, for instance, or how futuristic our society and tech would be if a couple of genetic mutations had occurred in our genetic line millions of years ago to alter fate. Imagining anyone's life or any timeframe without any mistakes made is ridiculous, as such a thing could never occur. There won't be a time where people trust each other enough to stop waging shadow wars and getting into others' business.
As far as my thoughts on Nasa's new snail pace, I too think its a shame that we've cut funds from it and still invest so heavily in the war.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
Why the hell not? As it stands now, we spend more money air conditioning tents in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan than we do on the entire NASA budget.
Centuries from now, our descendants will look back and wonder why we squandered our money on silly wars instead of exploring the great mysteries of the universe.
In my opinion, the space program is one of the first things we should be continuing.
NASA's budget makes me sad. Space exploration and colonization is arguably the most important component to humanties continued survival and advancement. Yet we spend so much money tring to kill each other.
More proof that as of right now NASA has no actual/reliable plan to return to Space.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
If the Defense budget is cut that cut should not be reallocated to NASA but simply be left out of the budget. There is no reason the government should have anything to do with space exploration other than military research. If space exploration isn't profitable in the private market then that is fine although I suspect it would be. Instead of being forced to pay tax towards NASA people who want could choose to invest or even donate if they really want.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
yeah but most people in the US are proud of nasa in some sense it's probably the most liked government program or atleast least hated. Also nasa's science and research could be called a job creator! :D
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
yeah but most people in the US are proud of nasa in some sense it's probably the most liked government program or atleast least hated. Also nasa's science and research could be called a job creator! :D
Yeah the government taking money and creating jobs with it is in fact creating jobs when you're not talking about the free market, creating jobs isn't necessarily a good thing. In the free market job creation will always be the result of production or at worst, someone foolishly investing which is at least their choice. The government on the other hand, takes money from the people to create jobs. Sometimes this is good but it is often bad. The government may be foolishly investing just like the man in the free market and instead of this coming at the expense of one man who chose to do that it comes at the expense of all tax payers who may or may not have supported the investment.
This is a true casualty of this entire financial crisis. Who knows where we would have been as a race if we had invested into space technology,ven 50 years ago this wouldn't have been acceptable. Exploration has been humanities largest endeavor for thousands of years and now its coming to an end just because some guys on wall street decided that one yacht wasn't enough.
I do hope they don't return to space. That is, until they find a new propulsion technology that is faster and more efficient than rockets. For now they should probably just work on research, and let spacex and biggelow do their thing.(though real experiments are important for research as well)
On August 07 2011 03:45 Hakker wrote: This is a true casualty of this entire financial crisis. Who knows where we would have been as a race if we had invested into space technology,ven 50 years ago this wouldn't have been acceptable. Exploration has been humanities largest endeavor for thousands of years and now its coming to an end just because some guys on wall street decided that one yacht wasn't enough.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
yeah but most people in the US are proud of nasa in some sense it's probably the most liked government program or atleast least hated. Also nasa's science and research could be called a job creator! :D
Yeah the government taking money and creating jobs with it is in fact creating jobs when you're not talking about the free market, creating jobs isn't necessarily a good thing. In the free market job creation will always be the result of production or at worst, someone foolishly investing which is at least their choice. The government on the other hand, takes money from the people to create jobs. Sometimes this is good but it is often bad. The government may be foolishly investing just like the man in the free market and instead of this coming at the expense of one man who chose to do that it comes at the expense of all tax payers who may or may not have supported the investment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off Yup long history of bad investments, nasa is also does it part by creating research needed for the rockets we used to scare off the rooskies by increasing reliability of our rockets from 60% chance of hitting their target to 96% by the end of the 80's
its getting so bad with NASA constantly promising a moon return since 1975 that even API reporters are doubting if NASA will "ever take a man beyond low earth orbit".
when conspiracy theorists start to include API reporters you know your organization is in bad shape.
Sorry for the long post, but I have strong feelings about this topic.
I want to point out a fundamental difference between the Saturn V (the Apollo launch vehicle) and this new SLS rocket. This won't be news to anyone who follows the history of the US space program.
The Saturn V was designed with a specific goal in mind - land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. Orbital mechanics dictate how much delta-v (change in velocity) is required to do this. The Saturn V's design was that it should fulfill the goal, while achieving maximum reliability and minimum cost. Nobody knew what type of vehicle would be the best design, so many designs were compared in numerous trade studies. Eventually, they settled upon a three-stage booster with a LOX-kerosene first stage, and LOX-hydrogen upper stages. The ullage motors (used to settle the fuel in the weightless environment of freefall) and the launch abort system (LAS) were chosen to be solid rocket motors.
The important thing to note is that the politicians set the final goal, and the engineers had complete freedom to do what they deemed necessary to achieve it. When skilled engineers design something, the result, unsurprisingly, is a good design.
Compare this to the SLS. Politicians are constraining this rocket design by inserting language into legislation which requires it to use components manufactured by businesses in their states/districts. Needless to say, politicians do not make good engineers. Their decisions would not result in a capable vehicle, or a cost-efficient vehicle, or an innovative vehicle, because their decisions are made according to the financial gain of a small number of people.
I'll now illustrate why the SLS is a poor design. First, solid rocket motors are simply bad outside of a few narrow uses, like ullage and escape motors (as on the Saturn V) and long-term storage (missiles in silos). Not only is the specific impulse of solids significantly lower than liquid fuels, the entire motor is a combustion chamber. Combustion chambers contain high pressure, and thus require thick walls. This makes them very massive. So, while they provide very high thrust, they do so for only a short time, and a large mass penalty is incurred. A liquid-fueled rocket, on the other hand, is made of a light, thin-walled tank operating at low pressure, feeding into a small combustion chamber operating at high pressure. The fuel mass fraction achieved with liquid fuels far superior, as is the specific impulse, and that leads to a superior rocket.
Second, the SLS's funding does not match its ambition. This leads to the extremely expanded time scale NASA has reported. But the effect is worse than you might think. Halving the budget does not merely double the timescale. It's far worse than that, due to the presence of fixed operating costs. You've heard about economies of scale, wherein it becomes cheaper (per part) to make something when you make a large number of them. Part of the reason for this is the recurring fixed cost of operating a facility and paying salaries. When you fund a large project with a small amount of money, you get truly abysmal efficiency.
And in case anyone is about to complain that NASA gets too much money already, remember they gets about 1.6% of the US discretionary budget, which is only 38% of the total budget. I can't take seriously an attack on NASA's budget from anyone who hasn't first come up with a way to curb the absurd quantities of money given to the 'defense' industry, and a way to fix social security.
In short, politicians are ruining the US space program and they must be stopped.
On August 07 2011 03:57 semantics wrote: Yup long history of bad investments, nasa is also does it part by creating research needed for the rockets we used to scare off the rooskies by increasing reliability of our rockets from 60% chance of hitting their target to 96% by the end of the 80's
The Wheat Deal really helped too. Reminds of the the "war" between Coke and Pepsi. All the peon employees in both companies think the 2 organizations are enemies. Meanwhile the prez of each organization have been friends since kindergarten, play golf together 3 times a week and swap wives during labour day weekend to break up the boredom of their marriages.
Tragically the US gov't and its bureaucrats used the "fight against communism" as an excuse to chip away at the liberties guaranteed in teh US Constitution piece by piece.
"should this country fall to oppression it will be under the guise of fighting a foreign enemy"
Keep in mind they refused to allow NASA to work with commercial partners and had them reuse shuttle parts. Lobbying at it's finest.
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today issued the following statement regarding NASA's implementation of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, particularly with regard to the direction of U.S. human spaceflight programs:
"Today NASA is scheduled to formally receive the independent cost assessment for the Space Launch System (SLS) that was requested by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). I expect this independent assessment will confirm what myself and the NASA technical staff have known for many months - that the SLS plan is financially and technically sound, and that NASA should move forward immediately.
"I remain very concerned about continuing delays. The 2010 NASA Authorization Act required NASA to bring forward a plan by January 10, 2011. The political leadership at NASA and at OMB has dragged their feet on implementation. After many requests for NASA to comply with the law, the Commerce Committee finally initiated a formal investigation earlier this summer. While that investigation is ongoing, I reiterate my call to NASA and the Administration to proceed with its SLS development program immediately, in compliance with the law.
cut 50% of the military budget or osmething just a thought
there are tons of low hanging fruits in the budget and nasa is not one of them. it is a politically weak one though and is in need of support by lemmings, instead of bashing.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Florida's U.S. senators say Alabama's U.S. senators misunderstand a federal law they all helped write, a law requiring NASA to build a heavy-lift rocket.
Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa, says the two delegations agree on the main point: NASA should start now on the new rocket formally known as the Space Launch System (SLS).
Yet despite Shelby's focus on the bottom line, the dueling views aired in two August letters to the White House, marking a rare public split in the congressional front pushing the new rocket.
The Alabama senators are furious that the White House has delayed development of Space Launch System even though Congress approved it last November in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and appropriated $1.8 billion for it for the fiscal year that ends this month.
On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
On August 07 2011 04:49 lithiumdeuteride wrote: Sorry for the long post, but I have strong feelings about this topic.
I want to point out a fundamental difference between the Saturn V (the Apollo launch vehicle) and this new SLS rocket. This won't be news to anyone who follows the history of the US space program.
The Saturn V was designed with a specific goal in mind - land a man on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth. Orbital mechanics dictate how much delta-v (change in velocity) is required to do this. The Saturn V's design was that it should fulfill the goal, while achieving maximum reliability and minimum cost. Nobody knew what type of vehicle would be the best design, so many designs were compared in numerous trade studies. Eventually, they settled upon a three-stage booster with a LOX-kerosene first stage, and LOX-hydrogen upper stages. The ullage motors (used to settle the fuel in the weightless environment of freefall) and the launch abort system (LAS) were chosen to be solid rocket motors.
The important thing to note is that the politicians set the final goal, and the engineers had complete freedom to do what they deemed necessary to achieve it. When skilled engineers design something, the result, unsurprisingly, is a good design.
Compare this to the SLS. Politicians are constraining this rocket design by inserting language into legislation which requires it to use components manufactured by businesses in their states/districts. Needless to say, politicians do not make good engineers. Their decisions would not result in a capable vehicle, or a cost-efficient vehicle, or an innovative vehicle, because their decisions are made according to the financial gain of a small number of people.
I'll now illustrate why the SLS is a poor design. First, solid rocket motors are simply bad outside of a few narrow uses, like ullage and escape motors (as on the Saturn V) and long-term storage (missiles in silos). Not only is the specific impulse of solids significantly lower than liquid fuels, the entire motor is a combustion chamber. Combustion chambers contain high pressure, and thus require thick walls. This makes them very massive. So, while they provide very high thrust, they do so for only a short time, and a large mass penalty is incurred. A liquid-fueled rocket, on the other hand, is made of a light, thin-walled tank operating at low pressure, feeding into a small combustion chamber operating at high pressure. The fuel mass fraction achieved with liquid fuels far superior, as is the specific impulse, and that leads to a superior rocket.
Second, the SLS's funding does not match its ambition. This leads to the extremely expanded time scale NASA has reported. But the effect is worse than you might think. Halving the budget does not merely double the timescale. It's far worse than that, due to the presence of fixed operating costs. You've heard about economies of scale, wherein it becomes cheaper (per part) to make something when you make a large number of them. Part of the reason for this is the recurring fixed cost of operating a facility and paying salaries. When you fund a large project with a small amount of money, you get truly abysmal efficiency.
And in case anyone is about to complain that NASA gets too much money already, remember they gets about 1.6% of the US discretionary budget, which is only 38% of the total budget. I can't take seriously an attack on NASA's budget from anyone who hasn't first come up with a way to curb the absurd quantities of money given to the 'defense' industry, and a way to fix social security.
In short, politicians are ruining the US space program and they must be stopped.
This is a really good summary of why NASA has some serious issues right now. However, there are a ton of private companies all developing spacecraft of their own, which gives the engineers the freedom to make their spacecraft as good as they can be.
On September 04 2011 05:09 Catch]22 wrote: Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Spending money on space programs offers little direct benefit, sure. But the indirect benefits, such as the advancement of our technological edge, as well as job and economic growth, are huge. In fact, we're probably regaining most of every dollar we spend on NASA, as opposed to spending areas such as defense or entitlement programs, where we lose most of it.
It's not about any specific field of research. It's just general space-related research that universities could never afford to do on their own. We pour tons of money into university research in a variety of fields not deemed "worthwhile", because the expansion of our scientific research often yields unexpected benefits. Just take a look at the technologies we have because of NASA alone.
NASA has been plagued by terrible mismanagement, some of it the fault of the agency, of some of it the fault of political tug-of-war in Congress constantly wasting their time/money with changing plans. But at it's heart, NASA is a worthwhile program. We just gotta figure out how to spend on it responsibly.
On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
I am so sick of posts like this, the areas that have benefited from NASA/Space program go all the way from Road safety, Artificial limbs, to even Medical Technologies such as Ultrasounds that are done everyday.
In the end of it all through all the debate; Space exploration is about one thing. Survival of the Human species.
On August 07 2011 03:46 Roe wrote: I do hope they don't return to space. That is, until they find a new propulsion technology that is faster and more efficient than rockets. For now they should probably just work on research, and let spacex and biggelow do their thing.(though real experiments are important for research as well)
Our technology is currently 40+ years ahead of what we need to develop a nuclear pulse drive, we just can't because of the partial test ban treaty which prevents us categorically from detonating small nuclear devices in space.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
LOL we don't even spend 20 billion on NASA but spend almost 700 billion on military spending, NASA is getting barely any funding, for example the replacement of the hubble telescope was cancelled and the shuttle program cancelled we spend NOTHING on NASA.
imo spending money on learning and knowledge is a million times better than spending on killing
think of it this way, what returns do you get from dead bodies? not much
what returns do you get from increased knowledge? the possibilities are endless
NASA just doesn't have the top minds any more. During war-time the smart people were working to win it, now that all the wars are petty money grubbing wastes of human life, the smart people have all left.
The rocket as a launch platform is hilarious and outdated. There are so many other better ideas out there that NASA ignores. Rocket sled assisted flight is totally viable, would save billion on rockets, and is totally re-useable. There are other ideas for a "sled" platform, such as magnetically power launch sled, that would be side-step directly burning fossil fuels.
Right now NASA is a 20 billion a year department that is throwing money in the trash because they didn't think up the rocket sled first.
On September 04 2011 05:09 Catch]22 wrote: Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Spending money on space programs offers little direct benefit, sure. But the indirect benefits, such as the advancement of our technological edge, as well as job and economic growth, are huge. In fact, we're probably regaining most of every dollar we spend on NASA, as opposed to spending areas such as defense or entitlement programs, where we lose most of it.
It's not about any specific field of research. It's just general space-related research that universities could never afford to do on their own. We pour tons of money into university research in a variety of fields not deemed "worthwhile", because the expansion of our scientific research often yields unexpected benefits. Just take a look at the technologies we have because of NASA alone.
NASA has been plagued by terrible mismanagement, some of it the fault of the agency, of some of it the fault of political tug-of-war in Congress constantly wasting their time/money with changing plans. But at it's heart, NASA is a worthwhile program. We just gotta figure out how to spend on it responsibly.
to reinforce sunprices argument: for every dollar we spend towards space exploration, it returns $7 back to the economy. several products we use in our every day lives were spinoffs from things nasa created during manned-space-flight.
On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Yeah, we should spend that money on killing each other, right? We really don't have any real problems down here on Earth. There is enough food, water and space to live in for everyone, the problem is uneducated countries, ignorant fools in educated countries and corrupt governments (about every government in the whole world) who don't give a damn about the average Joe, let alone about advancing our species and securing the safety of the whole planet, but only care whether they can afford to buy a third yacht or a second private jet and how to get the most votes for the next election so they can cash in again (if it's even a country that has elections).
I won't say anything about the budget for NASA as others have done that, but there is no limit as to what increased knowledge can provide for us (as has been pointed out by several others). The moment we stop desiring more knowledge is the moment we stop being human and become mere animals instead.
The politicians need to consider NASA as an investment: you give them money and freedom, and they will make some of the coolest stuff around which will somehow find its way into our homes.
Ofc, I am fine with politicians worrying about corruption and wasted funding, but that can be monitored without affecting the freedom of engineers and scientists.
Super bummed that the financial crisis has hit the space program. One can only hope (if you're logical and pursue knowledge) that some money gets put back into the study and exploration of the cosmos. Sagan would be ashamed and upset I'm sure.
On September 04 2011 06:49 Mortal wrote: Super bummed that the financial crisis has hit the space program. One can only hope (if you're logical and pursue knowledge) that some money gets put back into the study and exploration of the cosmos.
You don't even have to care to pursue knowledge. The cost-benefit analysis alone makes NASA worthwhile.
Oh well, guess we'll have to look to China for the next innovations in space...
On August 20 2011 22:22 Catch]22 wrote: Why spend money on space? Useless waste
i was about to answer that but, Why spend time on you?Useless waste
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
Yeah, we should spend that money on killing each other, right? We really don't have any real problems down here on Earth. There is enough food, water and space to live in for everyone, the problem is uneducated countries, ignorant fools in educated countries and corrupt governments (about every government in the whole world) who don't give a damn about the average Joe, let alone about advancing our species and securing the safety of the whole planet, but only care whether they can afford to buy a third yacht or a second private jet and how to get the most votes for the next election so they can cash in again (if it's even a country that has elections).
I won't say anything about the budget for NASA as others have done that, but there is no limit as to what increased knowledge can provide for us (as has been pointed out by several others). The moment we stop desiring more knowledge is the moment we stop being human and become mere animals instead.
We are animals no matter what you say and as animals we should care more about the world/environment we evolved on than a vaccuum. Yes space is important, but you're lacking respect for Earth if you act like NASA should keep getting money from a government that is getting fucked by not practicing safe sex
space is important yO, but countries need to fix their own problems so our children don't inherit them
I think its good there scaling down on launches even after the first one, I think the American people are more important at the moment than space exploration. Some people will be upset but those aren't the people that got laid off and have been looking for work for two years.
I love space exploration and the thought of getting someone onto another planet for the first time just as much as anyone but you really have to draw the line somewhere, there's only so many tax dollars to shove around, and keeping families, homes and businesses together far outweigh the hit in my opinion and maybe the rest of the world can step it up a bit in our decline for the coming decade or two.
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
Shouldn't you have made TINY really small as opposed to bold?
Lol'd - after you wrote that I was like hearing myself growling TINY(!!!) in the above post.
Anyway. Like someone above me said, never cut money on research. The logical choice, in a time when we are the aggressors and not defenders, would be to cut money on useless militarism.
I would like to see more cooperation between different countries around the world to fund these huge space programs. NASA simply doesn't have the budget to go at it alone anymore.
As someone who worked for NASA, I have to say that most of their wounds are self-inflicted. Anyone who believes their problems are due to a lack of funding doesn't understand the the underlying problems IMO.
Don't believe me?
Look at the space shuttle. The space shuttle was designed as a space plane with the idea that it would reduce the cost of space travel significantly. It was supposed to make spaceflight routine. The concept of operations was for 2 launches a month. What we got was a machine that didn't much better than two missions a year on average, costed 500 million per launch and lost 2 crews. It was a total dismal failure. Yet the program dragged in for years. Billions of dollars wasted with little or no benefit to anyone.
Why did this happen? Politics. The shuttle was nixons baby. We didn't have apollo any more, so by god were going to have a space plane! Why wasn't the program shuttered after the realization that it didn't meet it's ambitious requirements? Because NASA distributed the manufacturing and production to multiple influential congressional districts that treat it like a soviet style jobs program.
NASA is a shell these days. Another government jobs program clinging in with no purpose and no direction. Every few years when we get a new president, they draw new spaceships to bring in votes for the next election. I am seriously concerned for the future of NASA, and doubtful that it will ever provide us with the benefit it once did during the apollo program.
On September 04 2011 08:01 deadjawa wrote: As someone who worked for NASA, I have to say that most of their wounds are self-inflicted. Anyone who believes their problems are due to a lack of funding doesn't understand the the underlying problems IMO.
Don't believe me?
Look at the space shuttle. The space shuttle was designed as a space plane with the idea that it would reduce the cost of space travel significantly. It was supposed to make spaceflight routine. The concept of operations was for 2 launches a month. What we got was a machine that didn't much better than two missions a year on average, costed 500 million per launch and lost 2 crews. It was a total dismal failure. Yet the program dragged in for years. Billions of dollars wasted with little or no benefit to anyone.
Why did this happen? Politics. The shuttle was nixons baby. We didn't have apollo any more, so by god were going to have a space plane! Why wasn't the program shuttered after the realization that it didn't meet it's ambitious requirements? Because NASA distributed the manufacturing and production to multiple influential congressional districts that treat it like a soviet style jobs program.
Your observations are spot-on, but your conclusion doesn't follow. Yes, the reason why the space shuttle wasted so much money was politics. But that's the fault of Congress, not NASA.
You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
And why is the alternative always the military? The US could use quite a few extra dollars to spend on its citizens, less useful employed fucking around in space. The whole space race from the beginning was nothing but a propaganda tool part of the whole cold war. Now NASA is a living, breathing remnant from that era.
On September 04 2011 08:53 Catch]22 wrote: You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
This is quite ignorant of how scientific research actually works. Many times, research in one field yields to innovations in another.
The fact is, there's already plenty of research funding going into genetic and environmental research. Space research (and the assorted scientific benefits it yields), on the other hand, is overwhelmingly funded under NASA. Take that away and the money isn't going to end up funding other research programs, but will instead end up reducing the debt by irrelevant amounts (or, worse yet, towards more tax breaks and entitlement programs, since that's what the American people LOVE).
When the foundation set by NASA is sufficient for private companies to step in, then we can look to abolish it. They've taken baby steps in that direction, but they still have a long way to go. Until then, we benefit enormously from the pittance we spend towards space research.
On September 04 2011 08:53 Catch]22 wrote: You have to launch into space to... *Checks NASA Spin-off list* what the hell, Remote Control Ovens? Lets pick something more sensible like artificial limbs. Send the funds to proper research into it rather than have it bud off space-work. Maybe genetics or environmental research, maybe one of the other multitudes of worthwhile research areas.
This is quite ignorant of how scientific research actually works. Many times, research in one field yields to innovations in another.
The fact is, there's already plenty of research funding going into genetic and environmental research. Space research (and the assorted scientific benefits it yields), on the other hand, is overwhelmingly funded under NASA. Take that away and the money isn't going to end up funding other research programs, but will instead end up reducing the debt by irrelevant amounts (or, worse yet, towards more tax breaks and entitlement programs, since that's what the American people LOVE).
When the foundation set by NASA is sufficient for private companies to step in, then we can look to abolish it. They've taken baby steps in that direction, but they still have a long way to go. Until then, we benefit enormously from the pittance we spend towards space research.
Sunprince is completely correct.
You know satellite television, cell phones, GPS devices? How about water filters, cordless power tools, safety grooving in concrete, adjustable smoke detectors, long distance phone calls, shoe insoles, ear thermometers, memory foam, scratch resistant lenses, and invisible braces? CAT scanners? Computer microchips? Freeze-dried food? Insulation? Joysticks? All thanks to NASA and the space program.
Awesome innovations come from needing to solve problems, and then applying those solutions elsewhere.
The United States needs to invest as heavily into the sciences and research and development as possible: it's literally the only thing we have a comparative advantage in, and it's the only thing that will allow us to remain a top country in the world. If we don't start re-investing into sciences soon, our terrible infrastructure is going to catch up with us, and we will fall way way behind. The only jobs that will remain in the U.S. are service jobs that can't be outsourced, cheaper labor is available in many other locations in the world, and as technology improves, outsourcing gets easier. If we invest in R.D. though, we can keep the tech jobs here in the U.S.
Also, the eventual future of mankind is in space, there's no alternative with finite resources on our planet. Investing for the long term is the only way to ensure our species' survival. While it might not happen in the next few hundred years, we only need to look to history to know that waiting until the last minute would be foolish.
We can't keep choosing the short term over the long term every time: we're dooming the generations that will come after us. I for one do not want to be among those responsible for making life on earth hell for our children, our children's children, their children, or anywhere down the line. I want life to be better for our children than it was for us.
Can I ask, why do you think NASA should be allocated billions of dollars anyway? The thought of zipping about the stars to meet new species and have sex with them sounds fun and everything, but a lifetime of loving sci-fi is a poor reason to allocate funds towards a programme that isn't really giving us tangible benefits right now. We can get satellites into space - isn't that all we need for the nonce? Do we really need a government funded mission to Mars, or a space station of the moon? What would either really give us?
Bit of Devil's Advocate in this post, but at the same time, the more I think of it, the harder it is to justify spending on the Space Programme when there is such a black hole in the economy, and even if there wasn't the funds could be spent on people who actually need it. More than willing to be sold on a good cause for national space programmes, though. I want me my Firefly.
Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
On July 29 2011 11:18 Z3kk wrote: I'm just not sure as to whether they should continue the space program, at least for the time being... :x
For now, I really do not think money should be invested--at least so heavily--into NASA programs.
NASA's budget is a tiny fraction of the total federal budget.
And by tiny, we mean TINY.
Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? — Robert G. Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879) Section II, "Free Schools"
On September 04 2011 11:41 Sanctimonius wrote: Can I ask, why do you think NASA should be allocated billions of dollars anyway? The thought of zipping about the stars to meet new species and have sex with them sounds fun and everything, but a lifetime of loving sci-fi is a poor reason to allocate funds towards a programme that isn't really giving us tangible benefits right now. We can get satellites into space - isn't that all we need for the nonce? Do we really need a government funded mission to Mars, or a space station of the moon? What would either really give us?
Bit of Devil's Advocate in this post, but at the same time, the more I think of it, the harder it is to justify spending on the Space Programme when there is such a black hole in the economy, and even if there wasn't the funds could be spent on people who actually need it. More than willing to be sold on a good cause for national space programmes, though. I want me my Firefly.
Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
Read my post right above yours, I'll quote part of it here for your convenience.
You know satellite television, cell phones, GPS devices? How about water filters, cordless power tools, safety grooving in concrete, adjustable smoke detectors, long distance phone calls, shoe insoles, ear thermometers, memory foam, scratch resistant lenses, and invisible braces? CAT scanners? Computer microchips? Freeze-dried food? Insulation? Joysticks? All thanks to NASA and the space program.
Invest in NASA? You get all sorts of tangible side benefits in addition to the actual space program itself. This is how technology is invented: you have a problem that needs solving, so somebody solves the problem, and the technology used can be applied in other areas, so it is. If you don't have the problem, you don't get the tech. The space program has some of the most interesting and unique problems to solve anywhere, and that's why we get so much awesome stuff from it.
Who can over estimate the progress of the world if all the money wasted in superstition could be used to enlighten, elevate and civilize mankind? — Robert G. Ingersoll, "Some Mistakes of Moses" (1879) Section II, "Free Schools"
It's so sad, every time I see the figures I think "What if...."
Our society would be so much more advanced if we would just stop attacking each other and spending money on war and invested in science. Hell, we don't even need to fully cut the military or anything, just a lot of the wasteful spending (like trying to police the world). I know for a fact we have tons of useless military bases spread out over Europe for example.
On September 04 2011 11:41 Sanctimonius wrote: Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
Thank you, Whitewing. I'll quote part of my post for your convenience, too. My point is that yes, space travel gives us side benefits. It can result in other things. Can't we get the same side benefits from the private sector, if they took over space R&D? Why does it have to be the government, and therefore the taxpayer, who pays for space travel on the off chance we get more side-benefits?
What's the point in a government launching a new rocket in 2017 that recycles most space shuttle components?
How does this innovate. How is this not '60 technology? Why not have NASA stop making this type of rockets? What's the point? And this is supposed to go to Mars or some asteroid?
There used to be this concept called Venture Star. What are they proposing now? Why can't politicians just cancel government run human space flight? No we fist had Bush cancel the Space Shuttle. Then they put in place a somewhat ambitious plan with no budget at all called Constellation. Then they slowly start to admit project Constellation is nonsense. Then finally they decide to cancel it and replace it with something more realistic. And now we have this. Are these all just tricks to slowly get rid of all this and avoiding the political backlash of just canceling the Shuttle outright and saying there's no reason to have anything government developed to replace it?
If NASA put the money to it they could discover alien life within 20 years, assuming it is there to be discovered. But apparently that has no priority. Pointlessly orbiting earth apparently does. I guess it is something military related.
Ooh and all the spin off product arguments are bogus. People at NASA know they are wrong. You don't need to accelerate an 80 meter high cylinder filled with fuel up to 2.1 km/s just to develop some of that spin off technology stuff. Human space flight is anti science and is just as much a waste as military spending. HSF is either military or recreational. So far it has not been scientific.
I used to think Space Exploration was a waste of money...Then I saw the actual figures. Hell, most of those NASA satalites point back down at Earth and feed us valuable information about the temperature of the seas, changes in climate etc. I think its a terrible shame that more money isn't invested into science, not just Space Exploration but in all kinds of fields, particular stuff like Fusion and even Solar power.
As for the private sector, well I'm skeptical they'll step up. If they can send people into low earth orbit for a profit thats great for them and their rich clients but it doesn't really expand humanities frontiers at all. Its rich people paying for the most exlusive brand of tourism. I wish their money was going to the experts at NASA instead. Hell I'm not even sure this space tourism will get off the ground. Its not so long ago that Concorde was grounded indefinitely due to safety concerns and high running costs...Imagine where commercial space travel will be should an accident occur.
On September 04 2011 11:41 Sanctimonius wrote: Also: note I said government funded. Space exploration has given us thousands of benefits, some of them listed above. Can private companies fill the void for this kind of R&D if the US govenrment and other governments around the world spend less on their own programmes?
Thank you, Whitewing. I'll quote part of my post for your convenience, too. My point is that yes, space travel gives us side benefits. It can result in other things. Can't we get the same side benefits from the private sector, if they took over space R&D? Why does it have to be the government, and therefore the taxpayer, who pays for space travel on the off chance we get more side-benefits?
No we can't and we won't. The Private Sector is concerned with short run profits almost always, space programs are a long term investment. Further, there's very little incentive for the private sector to do it. It has to be the government because nobody else has any incentive to do it. It's not a profitable investment in the short term: you won't see returns for decades or longer. Private corporations can make money much faster than that with less effort.
It's the same reason as to why we don't have any good, cheap, alternative fuel sources for vehicles yet. Yeah, private corporations could put research into fuel cells or hydrogen fuel, but we don't have the infrastructure in place for it, and it's not profitable for them until the infrastructure is in place.
On September 04 2011 12:22 Suisen wrote: What's the point in a government launching a new rocket in 2017 that recycles most space shuttle components?
How does this innovate. How is this not '60 technology? Why not have NASA stop making this type of rockets? What's the point? And this is supposed to go to Mars or some asteroid?
There used to be this concept called Venture Star. What are they proposing now? Why can't politicians just cancel government run human space flight? No we fist had Bush cancel the Space Shuttle. Then they put in place a somewhat ambitious plan with no budget at all called Constellation. Then they slowly start to admit project Constellation is nonsense. Then finally they decide to cancel it and replace it with something more realistic. And now we have this. Are these all just tricks to slowly get rid of all this and avoiding the political backlash of just canceling the Shuttle outright and saying there's no reason to have anything government developed to replace it?
If NASA put the money to it they could discover alien life within 20 years, assuming it is there to be discovered. But apparently that has no priority. Pointlessly orbiting earth apparently does. I guess it is something military related.
Ooh and all the spin off product arguments are bogus. People at NASA know they are wrong. You don't need to accelerate an 80 meter high cylinder filled with fuel up to 2.1 km/s just to develop some of that spin off technology stuff. Human space flight is anti science and is just as much a waste as military spending. HSF is either military or recreational. So far it has not been scientific.
You have no idea what you are talking about, and history proves it. Getting the first man to mars, for example, would be a huge technological leap. We don't have the tech right now to do it, the logistical issues are huge. NASA doesn't put more money into these things because they don't have the money. And no, the spin off product arguments aren't bogus, history again, proves it. You can't seriously want to make the argument that "the facts are wrong, because I say they are wrong" do you? Nobody sits down to make an invention and succeeds without having a very specific goal in mind. To get these goals in mind, we need problems to solve. You create problems to solve by setting goals that aren't yet achievable. This is how technological development occurs.
I'd love to respond to your post, but you gave me no arguments to respond to.
So instead I'll just hammer down my position a bit more. Going to Mars would be an huge feat of engineering. Actually going to Mars wouldn't require much new technology except for the technology related to keeping humans in space or in isolation comfortably.
And yes, people sit down and think about science without any goal and discover very important things that later become huge industries.
Also, we didn't have one Apollo launch and one Shuttle launch. We had several for both. What's the point? If you want to develop technology and show you can do it you can do it once and then not waste any more cash.
History proves me wrong? How? The only reason spin off technology 'works' is because NASA made it possible to get funds. Human space flight is pure propaganda and politics and because of that it got money. You can go through the whole list of NASA spinoff technology and almost all clearly don't need people into orbit to develop them. Also, things like teflon aren't even NASA spinoff. That's all propaganda.
Now look at the ISS. I like to look at it as it passes through the sky. Then look at the cost. Then look what the return on investment actually is. Both Russia and the US want to get rid of it. It took many years to finish and now that it is basically finished they want to retire it asap and move on to something new.
Again, it's all hype and public promotion. Look at China and their space program as well. It's national prestige. ISS, been there done that. Now move on to something new that will make for good television.
On September 04 2011 12:50 Suisen wrote: I'd love to respond to your post, but you gave me no arguments to respond to.
So instead I'll just hammer down my position a bit more. Going to Mars would be an huge feat of engineering. Actually going to Mars wouldn't require much new technology except for the technology related to keeping humans in space or in isolation comfortably.
And yes, people sit down and think about science without any goal and discover very important things that later become huge industries.
Also, we didn't have one Apollo launch and one Shuttle launch. We had several for both. What's the point? If you want to develop technology and show you can do it you can do it once and then not waste any more cash.
History proves me wrong? How? The only reason spin off technology 'works' is because NASA made it possible to get funds. Human space flight is pure propaganda and politics and because of that it got money. You can go through the whole list of NASA spinoff technology and almost all clearly don't need people into orbit to develop them. Also, things like teflon aren't even NASA spinoff. That's all propaganda.
You either didn't read everything I wrote or didn't understand it, so I'll rephrase.
The development of TECHNOLOGY (not necessarily scientific discoveries, but new tech) occurs when someone is attempting to solve a problem, and current technology is inadequate. Space exploration provides a lot of interesting and difficult technical issues, that required a lot of new technology to solve. Thus, by creating a need to explore space, we created a need to solve the problems preventing us from exploring space, and thus developing the technology to do it. If we decide not to bother exploring space, we have no incentive to explore additional problems of going the next step, and therefore do not develop the necessary technology. Much technology that is developed in one field can be adapted by engineers to be used in other fields (most machines used in hospitals are invented this way), but it is the process of solving the original issues that allows for this. Nearly 100% of technological developments result from this basic process of problem solving.
By creating new and interesting problems to solve, we allow for new development paths of our technology that can often lead to incredible technical leaps (artificial satellites anyone?) Freeze-dried food, for example, is one technical development that directly resulted from manned spaceflight. If we hadn't needed to feed astronauts in space, we wouldn't have Hungry Man at the local supermarket (just as an example). If we close ourselves off by saying "manned space exploration" isn't important, we may very well be passing an opportunity to invent all sorts of new interesting inventions! One example of some tech we might develop would be a significantly advanced battery or other power source (keeping a person alive for such a long trip and the return trip requires a lot more energy than an unmanned trip, and using current batteries is just too inefficient).
On September 04 2011 12:50 Suisen wrote: I'd love to respond to your post, but you gave me no arguments to respond to.
So instead I'll just hammer down my position a bit more. Going to Mars would be an huge feat of engineering. Actually going to Mars wouldn't require much new technology except for the technology related to keeping humans in space or in isolation comfortably.
And yes, people sit down and think about science without any goal and discover very important things that later become huge industries.
Also, we didn't have one Apollo launch and one Shuttle launch. We had several for both. What's the point? If you want to develop technology and show you can do it you can do it once and then not waste any more cash.
History proves me wrong? How? The only reason spin off technology 'works' is because NASA made it possible to get funds. Human space flight is pure propaganda and politics and because of that it got money. You can go through the whole list of NASA spinoff technology and almost all clearly don't need people into orbit to develop them. Also, things like teflon aren't even NASA spinoff. That's all propaganda.
Now look at the ISS. I like to look at it as it passes through the sky. Then look at the cost. Then look what the return on investment actually is. Both Russia and the US want to get rid of it. It took many years to finish and now that it is basically finished they want to retire it asap and move on to something new.
Again, it's all hype and public promotion. Look at China and their space program as well. It's national prestige. ISS, been there done that. Now move on to something new that will make for good television.
Theoretically, yes. But in practice that's not the case, because human beings aren't perfect. I bet you that every single shuttle launch taught us something we didn't know before. One of the biggest examples that comes to mind is the investigation into shuttle safety that was undertaken only after the most recent shuttle accident. It took many launches to give certain scenarios a chance to manifest and it took many scenarios for us to take notice, analyze the right things from the right perspective and learn specific things from it. We could have stopped after the first shuttle launch, but we'd never, or much, much slower at least, have found out about all the intricacies, risks, dangers & misconceptions of the used technology. It turns out the space shuttle was incredibly unsafe and that wasn't because the huge amount and specific kind of fuel essentially made it into a bomb, but because it simply didn't occur to us to look at certain things from certain perspectives, with certain goals in mind and with sufficient rigor.
On July 29 2011 12:21 bITt.mAN wrote: What's with you guys, if anything, going to space is fucking cool, and it's not like the marginal funds they'd divert to NASA from the budget would end up "making the world a better place before moving out to space", they'd probably get lost in the system anyways, read "le filling-ze-pockets".
I was a little surprised when on the radio they were going on about how the last "Space Shuttle" had landed for the last time, and I guess this is what they're replacing that technology with.
I agree, more money does not necessarily equal improvement in many government sectors. I think its really sad the US is cutting back so hard on NASA, it provides jobs, develops new technology (where all growth of GDP outside of population growth/people working longer actually comes from). Its well spent money if you ask me.
Space is the future, we humans are inevitably going to fuck the planet up sometime in the future, resources will start running out and we will have to look outside of earth. I believe neglecting space research is not only sad, but irresponsible to future generations who may end having to rely on space tech to survive. If I was prime minister australia would have its own space program.
On July 29 2011 12:21 bITt.mAN wrote: What's with you guys, if anything, going to space is fucking cool, and it's not like the marginal funds they'd divert to NASA from the budget would end up "making the world a better place before moving out to space", they'd probably get lost in the system anyways, read "le filling-ze-pockets".
I was a little surprised when on the radio they were going on about how the last "Space Shuttle" had landed for the last time, and I guess this is what they're replacing that technology with.
I agree, more money does not necessarily equal improvement in many government sectors. I think its really sad the US is cutting back so hard on NASA, it provides jobs, develops new technology (where all growth of GDP outside of population growth/people working longer actually comes from). Its well spent money if you ask me.
Space is the future, we humans are inevitably going to fuck the planet up sometime in the future, resources will start running out and we will have to look outside of earth. I believe neglecting space research is not only sad, but irresponsible to future generations who may end having to rely on space tech to survive. If I was prime minister australia would have its own space program.
Like no one ever realized that better batteries would be useful to have. Look, these 'problem's already exist. They aren't created by spending money on a big HSF project. You never even addressed the point that while these technologies ended up being developed first by NASA, they don't have to be. We have a symmetry here. Just like NASA technology can be used in other fields if NASA develops it first, same is true the other way. We want better medical equipment. Let's fund research into that. We want better batteries or solar cells, let's fund research into that. Then HSF can use the spinoff technology from different fields itself and be a lot cheaper although slower.
By definition something that can only be discovered by researching on HSF can only be needed by HSF. And I am not against HSF. If the super rich want to do space tourism and pay millions for that, fine let them. But why does the government have to fund that by taking money away from fundamental science and actual space exploration using space probes? And I still have to be convinced that human space flight will some day be useful for anything besides tourism.
Also, replace 'space' with 'Mount Everest' or 'Mariana Trench' and tell me what changed and why? Why aren't we building a big city on either of them? That would require a lot of new technology.
And having government HSF the last few decades hasn't actually produced any new technology since they are still using the same stuff. Orion V was basically Apollo but now with less funding. And this new idea is basically recycling shuttle components to save money. How does that create any new technology?
Instead, NASA can spend money on researching how commercial airliners can be more fuel efficient. One of the problems they work on is getting a supersonic plane that does not create sonic booms. NASA does more than human space flight, but you should look at their actual budget and see how much ISS and space shuttle took up and how little was spend on astronomy, cosmology and R&D. It's very similar to that defense spending vs space spending graph.
Right now NASA has the James Webb space telescope. But that project can't keep within budget and keeps getting delayed. At some point they won't get additional funding and it will be canceled ad all the money wasted. It's like how they spend money digging a hole for the Superconducting Super Collider but then canceled it later and wasted more money filling up the hole again. Why? Because some member of congress asked "Will we find God with this machine? If so, I will vote for it." and the physicist didn't answer that positively. When JWST is canceled, NASA is dead.
Now for years I have heard horror stories about NASA's efficiency. Here again I hear the same thing from someone who claims to have first hand experience. I would call it corruption. NASA is very much like the CIA to me. Both should be gotten rid off and new institutions should be started from scratch.
On September 04 2011 13:20 Suisen wrote: Like no one ever realized that better batteries would be useful to have. Look, these 'problem's already exist. They aren't created by spending money on a big HSF project. You never even addressed the point that while these technologies ended up being developed first by NASA, they don't have to be. We have a symmetry here. Just like NASA technology can be used in other fields if NASA develops it first, same is true the other way. We want better medical equipment. Let's fund research into that. We want better batteries or solar cells, let's fund research into that. Then HSF can use the spinoff technology from different fields itself and be a lot cheaper although slower.
And having government HSF the last few decades hasn't actually produced any new technology since they are still using the same stuff. Orion V was basically Apollo but now with less funding. And this new idea is basically recycling shuttle components to save money. How does that create any new technology?
Instead, NASA can spend money on researching how commercial airliners can be more fuel efficient. One of the problems they work on is getting a supersonic plane that does not create sonic booms. NASA does more than human space flight, but you should look at their actual budget and see how much ISS and space shuttle took up and how little was spend on astronomy, cosmology and R&D. It's very similar to that defense spending vs space spending graph.
Right now NASA has the James Webb space telescope. But that project can't keep within budget and keeps getting delayed. At some point they won't get additional funding and it will be canceled ad all the money wasted. It's like how they spend money digging a hole for the Superconducting Super Collider but then canceled it later and wasted more money filling up the hole again. Why? Because some member of congress asked "Will we find God with this machine? If so, I will vote for it." and the physicist didn't answer that positively. When JWST is canceled, NASA is dead.
Now for years I have heard horror stories about NASA's efficiency. Here again I hear the same thing from someone who claims to have first hand experience. I would call it corruption. NASA is very much like the CIA to me. Both should be gotten rid off and new institutions should be started from scratch.
I'm not sure how I can better explain this, other than to say that often times, it's not possible to solve a problem directly, but indirectly. You can't just say "Let's research better batteries because better batteries would be awesome." It's true, you can make some progress that way, but leaps only occur when different approaches are brought together. The overwhelming majority of tech is developed to solve a problem that is not related to the commercial usage of it. MRI technology was not developed by physicists to see people's brains. It was later realized that the tech COULD be used for that purpose and the MRI machine was invented. The best advancements come from complicated problems. The more complicated the issue, the most likely it is to result in great tech advances. But it's rarely a straight line, progress just doesn't work that way. Mind you, it CAN work that way, it's certainly possible, but it rarely does.
If your issue is with the organization itself, then I won't disagree, clearly it could be run better. But we definitely need to invest in space exploration: one day it'll be completely necessary for man to colonize our solar system, the sooner we start, the less likely we will be to run out of resources on Earth before it happens.
I think you are confused about fundamental research. About that you won't know how it will be applied. When first discovered electricity was thought to be useless.
But the whole thing with human space flight is exactly that: "We need a smaller, more reliable battery. So we try to develop one because we need it for our new capsule." It's completely direct and can't be compared to doing research in the most basic forces of nature.
As EX NASA employee (probably seen me in other nasa posts), I was waiting for a thread like this. It's interesting to read peoples enthusiasm towards the space challenges, and of course the nay sayers who think its all a waste of money. I worked so freaking hard on Project Orion, only to see it cancelled, and subsequently so many of my peers laid off. I've been out of work for almost two years now (worked CFD for hypersonic re-entry vehicles mainly), but just recently found employment again.
Frankly, NASA and the US is just going to fall significantly behind. Expect China to take over any space race, but these leaks are some what interesting. If the Russian resupply craft didn't blow up we would literally just expect them to do our services.
Let's hope Space-X can take over where the US Government has obviously failed. RIP NASA
On September 04 2011 13:20 Suisen wrote: Like no one ever realized that better batteries would be useful to have. Look, these 'problem's already exist. They aren't created by spending money on a big HSF project. You never even addressed the point that while these technologies ended up being developed first by NASA, they don't have to be. We have a symmetry here. Just like NASA technology can be used in other fields if NASA develops it first, same is true the other way. We want better medical equipment. Let's fund research into that. We want better batteries or solar cells, let's fund research into that. Then HSF can use the spinoff technology from different fields itself and be a lot cheaper although slower.
By definition something that can only be discovered by researching on HSF can only be needed by HSF. And I am not against HSF. If the super rich want to do space tourism and pay millions for that, fine let them. But why does the government have to fund that by taking money away from fundamental science and actual space exploration using space probes? And I still have to be convinced that human space flight will some day be useful for anything besides tourism.
Also, replace 'space' with 'Mount Everest' or 'Mariana Trench' and tell me what changed and why? Why aren't we building a big city on either of them? That would require a lot of new technology.
And having government HSF the last few decades hasn't actually produced any new technology since they are still using the same stuff. Orion V was basically Apollo but now with less funding. And this new idea is basically recycling shuttle components to save money. How does that create any new technology?
Instead, NASA can spend money on researching how commercial airliners can be more fuel efficient. One of the problems they work on is getting a supersonic plane that does not create sonic booms. NASA does more than human space flight, but you should look at their actual budget and see how much ISS and space shuttle took up and how little was spend on astronomy, cosmology and R&D. It's very similar to that defense spending vs space spending graph.
Right now NASA has the James Webb space telescope. But that project can't keep within budget and keeps getting delayed. At some point they won't get additional funding and it will be canceled ad all the money wasted. It's like how they spend money digging a hole for the Superconducting Super Collider but then canceled it later and wasted more money filling up the hole again. Why? Because some member of congress asked "Will we find God with this machine? If so, I will vote for it." and the physicist didn't answer that positively. When JWST is canceled, NASA is dead.
Now for years I have heard horror stories about NASA's efficiency. Here again I hear the same thing from someone who claims to have first hand experience. I would call it corruption. NASA is very much like the CIA to me. Both should be gotten rid off and new institutions should be started from scratch.
I believe the canceling/wasting of work is partly a symptom of the democratic process. Don't get me wrong I think its the probably the fairest form of government around but democracy does have the downside that every 4/8 years a new ideology enters power. A lot of long term projects tend to be very inefficient or have their funding cut from underneath them because of changing political attitudes. Many politicians will do what will win them votes and please masses in the short term, and long term projects are rarely undertaken. Elections also create uncertainty about funding in the future, (as its unknown what the political landscape in 5 years will think of space science compared to today) and thus many immense projects are simply not undertaken because they may never see completion.
I think china will largely outpace the US in space travel in the future especially the way things are going right now. The private sector might help keep the US in the game but I don't think theres enough of a concerted will to keep up with a country like china. Ultimately I think china inspiring a space race like the russians did would actually be a very good thing.
I can agree with some posters that the space program itself is a bit pointless in this time and place (I still think it should be continued for when it is needed). Perhaps it would be better to create a full colony below water now instead of focusing on space. There are already people trying to build floating colonies near land. A colony under water would face many of the same problems as one in space, not exactly the same and not all of them though giving more short term benefits.
On September 04 2011 15:22 Yurie wrote: I can agree with some posters that the space program itself is a bit pointless in this time and place (I still think it should be continued for when it is needed). Perhaps it would be better to create a full colony below water now instead of focusing on space. There are already people trying to build floating colonies near land. A colony under water would face many of the same problems as one in space, not exactly the same and not all of them though giving more short term benefits.
Hypoxic and space environments share enough similarities that working on underwater colonies would lead to benefits for space programs as well. Can't knock on that. But cutting NASA funding would increase the reliance on private companies to ensure the operations of our satellites. On one hand it can be seen as alarmist and cynical not to trust privately operated companies. On the other hand there is a LOT at stake by removing the safe space program in exchange for a more economical private industry.
On September 04 2011 15:22 Yurie wrote: I can agree with some posters that the space program itself is a bit pointless in this time and place (I still think it should be continued for when it is needed). Perhaps it would be better to create a full colony below water now instead of focusing on space. There are already people trying to build floating colonies near land. A colony under water would face many of the same problems as one in space, not exactly the same and not all of them though giving more short term benefits.
An underwater colony requires the Earth to sustain it.
One of the reasons why we want to explore and colonize the cosmos is to ensure that mankind does not solely depend upon the Earth for survival.
I agree that building an underwater colony will create benefits for us. But underwater colonies will be created when the opportunity arises for them (like an "underwater colony race").
However, the opportunity for space exploration has already arisen, thanks to the formation of NASA. We should act on this opportunity by supporting NASA's goal towards long range exploration of space.
koreakool, what you say is very strange. Earth can sustain life. Space can't. There is nothing to depend on for survival besides earth. It is theoretically possible to have a colony on Mars. But why be piss poor on Mars when you can live as a king on earth? And any colony will always depend on earth. And you realize that NASA isn't really spending a lot of money on finding habitable planets, if they exist. Right now the Kepler space telescope is doing a good job. But right not there is no program for building a more advanced planet finding space telescope. There is only the James Webb. James Webb ST started in 1996. Kepler also was delayed because of budget cuts time and time again. Also, when habitable planets are found. Humans will never travel there. Humans may live there one day because of a 'trick', but that's different.
I don't know either why you think there is no opportunity for permanent bases on the bottom of the ocean. It's a lot more viable and cheaper than human space flight. Now actual science in both places is done best by robots, but that's a different story.
On September 05 2011 01:15 Suisen wrote: koreakool, what you say is very strange. Earth can sustain life. Space can't. There is nothing to depend on for survival besides earth.
Because colonising other planets is a major step for any species to accomplish. At some point the Earth is going to die. Its a given fact. Yes its a long way in the future from what we can see but that doesnt chance the fact that the only future mankind has is in the stars.
Say 20 years from now an actual big asteroid finds itself on a colision course with earth. That isnt even all that unlikely if you realise how often they just miss us. So this big rock is going to hit. and when it does life as we know it ends. Think dinosaur extinction if that helps. By settling for earth because its convenient we just became extinct. Only by pushing ourselfs to leave this planet behind and expand into the solar system can we survive long term.
But there is no where to go to. Mars is already dead. Yes earth will be uninhabitable someday and the way we are acting now it will be sooner rather than later. But how is space of any benefit?
We have to find some habitable planet and NASA isn't working on new projects in trying to find them because they want to go back to orbit a manned white elephant, want to go back to the moon, go 'beyond LEO' or go to Mars.
Say one day we find a planet that has photosynthesis organisms, lots of liquid water and oxygen. It's 30 light years away. We want to spread mankind across the universe to prevent going extinct. I don't see why it matters if we go extinct or not. But let's ignore that. What does what we are doing today with human space flight have anything to do with it? Things like humans in cryogenics or worldships that are habited by entire generations while it speeds across our galaxy is pure science fiction. And it will always be SF.
Instead what we will do is send a tiny probe with some nanobots to that planet. The effective payload may be less than 1 gram. The rest of the spaceship may be much much larger and be all about protecting, speeding up and accelerating down this 1 gram of effective payload. When it arrives it can create humans from DNA. It's absurd to transport an actual humans, as we know them now, across space. The laws of physics are just stacked against it.
You people have all kinds of romantic ideas about living in space. But in fact there is nothing for us out there. Yes, it is technologically possible to have a base somewhere that is primarily self sufficient. But why bother? Humans in space is never going to be economically viable. Technology will make it cheaper. But technology will make everything more cheaper so it won't be more profitable. Mining helium 3 on the moon, zero G manufacturing, all these things I don't see becoming profitable as long as it requires humans along robots to carry out the work.
On September 05 2011 01:15 Suisen wrote: koreakool, what you say is very strange. Earth can sustain life. Space can't. There is nothing to depend on for survival besides earth. It is theoretically possible to have a colony on Mars. But why be piss poor on Mars when you can live as a king on earth? And any colony will always depend on earth. And you realize that NASA isn't really spending a lot of money on finding habitable planets, if they exist. Right now the Kepler space telescope is doing a good job. But right not there is no program for building a more advanced planet finding space telescope. There is only the James Webb. James Webb ST started in 1996. Kepler also was delayed because of budget cuts time and time again. Also, when habitable planets are found. Humans will never travel there. Humans may live there one day because of a 'trick', but that's different.
I don't know either why you think there is no opportunity for permanent bases on the bottom of the ocean. It's a lot more viable and cheaper than human space flight. Now actual science in both places is done best by robots, but that's a different story.
Because resources and space on earth are limited, as is the fuel of our sun. Being piss poor on Mars is a problem that requires solving, and as previously discussed will lead to the development of new technology. That any colony will always depend on earth is your opinion, not fact. Colonies depend on earth to get started, but I don't think that there is enough information to sustain the claim that they will always remain in such dependency. In fact earth itself started out as not suitable for the life of a king, as you put it, but it evidently changed by a number of unguided processes and now we're here. It is quite likely that the same can be done for other worlds in less time, because now we are here to provide such guidance, to work towards specific goals.
Technology hardly gets developed with no goal requiring its use, and space exploration is a necessary goal that has provided, historically, and will continue to provide good return of/on the technology that is found.
On September 05 2011 02:06 Suisen wrote: But there is no where to go to. Mars is already dead. Yes earth will be uninhabitable someday and the way we are acting now it will be sooner rather than later. But how is space of any benefit?
We have to find some habitable planet and NASA isn't working on new projects in trying to find them because they want to go back to orbit a manned white elephant, want to go back to the moon, go 'beyond LEO' or go to Mars.
Say one day we find a planet that has photosynthesis organisms, lots of liquid water and oxygen. It's 30 light years away. We want to spread mankind across the universe to prevent going extinct. I don't see why it matters if we go extinct or not. But let's ignore that. What does what we are doing today with human space flight have anything to do with it? Things like humans in cryogenics or worldships that are habited by entire generations while it speeds across our galaxy is pure science fiction. And it will always be SF.
Instead what we will do is send a tiny probe with some nanobots to that planet. The effective payload may be less than 1 gram. The rest of the spaceship may be much much larger and be all about protecting, speeding up and accelerating down this 1 gram of effective payload. When it arrives it can create humans from DNA. It's absurd to transport an actual humans, as we know them now, across space. The laws of physics are just stacked against it.
You people have all kinds of romantic ideas about living in space. But in fact there is nothing for us out there. Yes, it is technologically possible to have a base somewhere that is primarily self sufficient. But why bother? Humans in space is never going to be economically viable. Technology will make it cheaper. But technology will make everything more cheaper so it won't be more profitable. Mining helium 3 on the moon, zero G manufacturing, all these things I don't see becoming profitable as long as it requires humans along robots to carry out the work.
We merely have to find a body on which we can establish a habitat, not one that is already perfectly habitable on its own. There is not even a guarantee that there is ever going to be one. There is also no reason to waste time when we can start working on that problem now and reap the benefits earlier.
What you said there about NASA's projects & reasoning also strikes me as speculation at best, made up out of thin air at worst. First of all I must doubt your knowledge of NASA projects to be sufficient to make such an absolute statement, because my impression of the number of their projects is quite the opposite of yours. And if they don't do enough projects to do your expectations justice then it's certainly a lot more plausible to say that it is because a lack of funding as opposed to a lack of genuine interest of NASA to do science, especially when it comes to learning more about exoplanets.
Going for & beyond LEO, to the Moon, an asteroid or Mars isn't useless or a white elephant either. It yields necessary technology to be able to access "deep" space at all. Robots are not sufficient for that, because at one point humans will have to leave Earth and that can hardly be done when we know nothing of the technological capabilities available to us & necessary for long term habitation in space, feasible means of propulsion etc. It's only reasonable to start to learn about these things with celestial bodies closer to us than a habitable planet "that has photosynthesis organisms, lots of liquid water and oxygen … 30 light years away". Before you say that we can develop these technologies purely based on earth I'll just point to the need for long term studies of the influence of weightlessness on the human body as one example.
You speculate an awful lot and claim absolute knowledge about the future and technological capabilities that are impossible to predict. We don't even know how accurate our understanding of physics is, for that matter.
i am totally ignorant to all this stuff about nasa but isn't the point of the space shuttle to have a mostly reusable ship and tanks (They pick the tanks up out at sea or whatever right?) and so the occupants can have a fixed wing aircraft to land back safely on earth? Wasn't this design pretty close to perfect and the reason why they got rid of the old rocket designs and why they've been using it for 30 years? Why are they going back to this old stuff?
On September 05 2011 04:42 SpoR wrote: i am totally ignorant to all this stuff about nasa but isn't the point of the space shuttle to have a mostly reusable ship and tanks (They pick the tanks up out at sea or whatever right?) and so the occupants can have a fixed wing aircraft to land back safely on earth? Wasn't this design pretty close to perfect and the reason why they got rid of the old rocket designs and why they've been using it for 30 years? Why are they going back to this old stuff?
It was far from perfect. With current technology the common design of capsules rather than winged landers is far less expensive. The shuttle was horribly unsafe as well as reports have pointed out. It just didn't bother us earlier for ideological reasons.
I'm unaware of the actual procedures, but I believe the only part of the shuttle that was reused was the shuttle and its engine itself, not the rocket & boosters.
On September 05 2011 01:15 Suisen wrote: koreakool, what you say is very strange. Earth can sustain life. Space can't. There is nothing to depend on for survival besides earth. It is theoretically possible to have a colony on Mars. But why be piss poor on Mars when you can live as a king on earth? And any colony will always depend on earth. And you realize that NASA isn't really spending a lot of money on finding habitable planets, if they exist. Right now the Kepler space telescope is doing a good job. But right not there is no program for building a more advanced planet finding space telescope. There is only the James Webb. James Webb ST started in 1996. Kepler also was delayed because of budget cuts time and time again. Also, when habitable planets are found. Humans will never travel there. Humans may live there one day because of a 'trick', but that's different.
I don't know either why you think there is no opportunity for permanent bases on the bottom of the ocean. It's a lot more viable and cheaper than human space flight. Now actual science in both places is done best by robots, but that's a different story.
Suisen, what I say isn't strange at all. Space can indeed sustain life. For example, terraforming Mars will create an Earth-like planet to sustain life.
Perhaps overpopulation and dwindling resources on the Earth will drive our descendents to travel to Mars and start a better life. Eventually, Mars will be self sufficient, thanks to extensive terraforming.
NASA needs more funding if it is to finish the James Webb Space Telescope. We should give NASA the funding it needs to accomplish it's mission.
There is currently no opportunity to build permanent bases on the bottom of the ocean because there is no government organization to create underwater bases. And it just isn't feasible for private companies to do it either.
Conditions on the surface of Mars are much closer to habitability than any other Moon or Planet besides the Clouds of Venus, and of course Earth in the Solar System. Also has nobody ever heard of Martian Architecture, Habitat Modules heck even Private Companies have cause to "invest" in such areas, Bigelow Aerospace is just one of them in which they just, literally, hook modules together whether in space or on the surface.
Nobody said Colonization had to be on the surface of a Planet.
But in practicality it will most likely be the moon first, Mars, and who knows. That is if NASA can get it's head on straight and on more global scale work together.
Possible 2017 test launch of the "core" vehicle for about 18 billion dollars. If would be hilarious if wasn't so depressing.
That core would use surplus space shuttle main engines and the J-2X upper-stage engine now in development. With upgrades approved by Bolden after a lengthy engineering analysis within NASA, the rocket could “evolve” to the 130-metric-ton capability Congress ordered in the three-year NASA reauthorization act passed and signed by President Barack Obama in December 2010.
NASA estimates obtained by Aviation Week show NASA told Booz Allen analysts that the core SLS could be developed for about $10 billion, plus $1.5 billion to cover the agency’s full-cost accounting approach that includes civil service salaries.
NASA already has spent about $5 billion on the Orion capsule, which could fly unmanned in 2017 for another $6 billion, plus $0.7 billion for full-cost accounting. The “21st Century Ground Systems” Congress ordered for the new vehicle would cost about $2 billion, plus a $0.4 billion full-cost escalator.
All this is thanks to the clusterfuck called the James Webb Telescope which has now ballooned to EIGHT billion dollars. Also keep in mind NASA is now talking about an Outpost on the Moon so as of this writing and article NASA has no idea where the SLS will/should go.
WASHINGTON — NASA would get $17.7 billion in fiscal 2013 under President Barack Obama’s budget, about $59 million less than Congress approved for the current fiscal year.
The proposal includes significant funding for the agency’s primary space programs — nearly $3 billion for the heavy-lift Space Launch System that will eventually transport astronauts to Mars, and $830 million for the Commercial Crew and Cargo Program that will replace the space shuttle and taxi crew and cargo to the International Space Station.
The release of President Barack Obama’s NASA budget plan for fiscal 2013 has triggered the usual chattering about what (and who) got too little or too much funding. Some offer hyperbole about the “catastrophic” impact of a cut or even an insufficiently large increase.
The 2013 submission clearly implements the 2010 Authorization Act compromise within an overall budget cap, and honors the deals struck last fall between then-Office of Management and Budget Director Jack Lew and key senators on exploration funding and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). So the only quasi-justified uproar is over Mars exploration having to pay for saving JWST.
But without the overt provocations of recent years, some in Congress are digging up obsolete assumptions to justify further criticisms of the Obama administration’s spaceflight budget priorities.
One such argument is the claim from both houses of Congress that the funding for the Space Launch System (SLS) — which increases from the 2012 level — is too small to enable the SLS to launch the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) as a backup for commercial crew services. Some even suggest that NASA is putting too much money into the legislatively stipulated primary means of carrying astronauts to and from the international space station (commercial crew) and therefore shortchanging the backup (SLS). Of course, NASA is spending nearly four times as much on Orion and SLS as it is on commercial crew, so the argument appears lopsided.
But how justified is the underlying concern? Let’s step back and review history. In 2010 Congress enacted authorization legislation that directed NASA to build an evolvable Space Launch System. To the Senate’s credit, it tried to avoid Constellation’s mistake of building two launch systems (Ares 1 and Ares 5) nearly simultaneously by developing just one system incrementally over time, with the initial version serving closer destinations and the later version enabling more aggressive missions. With this in mind, it directed NASA to ensure that the SLS be available to launch the MPCV to the international space station, if necessary, as a backup to commercial crew capabilities, which the law declares will be NASA’s primary means of space station crew transfer.
Take note after wasting however much $$$ on this plan NASA still has no clue what it actually plans to do with the rokcet.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. -- The nation's space exploration program is taking a critical step forward with a successful major technical review of the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the rocket that will take astronauts farther into space than ever before.
The core stage is the heart of the heavy-lift launch vehicle. It will stand more than 200 feet (61 meters) tall with a diameter of 27.5 feet (8.4 meters).
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., hosted a comprehensive review. Engineers from NASA and The Boeing Co. of Huntsville presented a full set of system requirements, design concepts and production approaches to technical reviewers and the independent review board.
Now we know why the SLS system isn't being scrapped:
Top NASA officials have picked a leading candidate for the agency's next major mission: construction of a new outpost that would send astronauts farther from Earth than at any time in history.
The so-called "gateway spacecraft" would hover in orbit on the far side of the moon, support a small astronaut crew and function as a staging area for future missions to the moon and Mars.
At 277,000 miles from Earth, the outpost would be far more remote than the current space station, which orbits a little more than 200 miles above Earth. The distance raises complex questions of how to protect astronauts from the radiation of deep space — and rescue them if something goes wrong.
NASA Chief Charlie Bolden briefed the White House earlier this month on details of the proposal, but it's unclear whether it has the administration's support. Of critical importance is the price tag, which would certainly run into the billions of dollars.
Documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel show that NASA wants to build a small outpost — likely with parts left over from the $100 billion International Space Station — at what's known as the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 2, a spot about 38,000 miles from the moon and 277,000 miles from Earth.
At that location, the combined gravities of the Earth and moon reach equilibrium, making it possible to "stick" an outpost there with minimal power required to keep it in place.
To get there, NASA would use the massive rocket and space capsule that it is developing as a successor to the retired space shuttle. A first flight of that rocket is planned for 2017, and construction of the outpost would begin two years later, according to NASA planning documents.
It gives purpose to the Orion space capsule and the Space Launch System rocket, which are being developed at a cost of about $3 billion annually. It involves NASA's international partners, as blueprints for the outpost suggest using a Russian-built module and components from Italy. And the outpost would represent a baby step toward NASA's ultimate goal: human footprints on Mars.
You guys are forgetting the SLS launch calendars, along with the fact that the Moon is already a valid outpost especially if we want to have a base for future deep space missions etc.
Also this completely gives the middle finger to the unmanned fuel depots being proposed and even groups who are actively working on said projects while seeking fundraising.
I think Neil Degrasse said it best when it comes to budget cutting (kinda off topic), the reason everyone is cutting NASA is becasue they think it's "special interest"... But we use space related material everyday and he goes on to say the things you don't notice, the programs no one hears about are the programs doing everything so perfect they're silent and that's why it's "special interest".
Top NASA officials have picked a leading candidate for the agency's next major mission: construction of a new outpost that would send astronauts farther from Earth than at any time in history.
The so-called "gateway spacecraft" would hover in orbit on the far side of the moon, support a small astronaut crew and function as a staging area for future missions to the moon and Mars.
At 277,000 miles from Earth, the outpost would be far more remote than the current space station, which orbits a little more than 200 miles above Earth. The distance raises complex questions of how to protect astronauts from the radiation of deep space — and rescue them if something goes wrong.
NASA Chief Charlie Bolden briefed the White House earlier this month on details of the proposal, but it's unclear whether it has the administration's support. Of critical importance is the price tag, which would certainly run into the billions of dollars.
Documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel show that NASA wants to build a small outpost — likely with parts left over from the $100 billion International Space Station — at what's known as the Earth-Moon Lagrange Point 2, a spot about 38,000 miles from the moon and 277,000 miles from Earth.
At that location, the combined gravities of the Earth and moon reach equilibrium, making it possible to "stick" an outpost there with minimal power required to keep it in place.
To get there, NASA would use the massive rocket and space capsule that it is developing as a successor to the retired space shuttle. A first flight of that rocket is planned for 2017, and construction of the outpost would begin two years later, according to NASA planning documents.
It gives purpose to the Orion space capsule and the Space Launch System rocket, which are being developed at a cost of about $3 billion annually. It involves NASA's international partners, as blueprints for the outpost suggest using a Russian-built module and components from Italy. And the outpost would represent a baby step toward NASA's ultimate goal: human footprints on Mars.
On September 24 2012 03:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: You guys are forgetting the SLS launch calendars, along with the fact that the Moon is already a valid outpost especially if we want to have a base for future deep space missions etc.
Also this completely gives the middle finger to the unmanned fuel depots being proposed and even groups who are actively working on said projects while seeking fundraising.
Or, because you have no actual reasoning why space travel is anything worth investing in at the moment. We have enough need for the money back home on earth.
It used to be on some allure of supposed research performed in zero gravity, but that never yielded any results at all. Spend the money on something worthwhile instead of the space program.
You are the problem with this planet. Not only would space exploration and research give the human race a direction torwards something higher than killing each other for meaningless power, it would actually help the economy of whatever country took up the exploration by expanding its science, math, and engineering sectors.
Except the unmanned fuel stations were for deep space missions not only on surface but also orbiting platforms which would cut costs unlike this proposal which has actual manned missions to and from stations for that exact purpose. Except there is no surface station(s) and no other missions OUTGOING.
The next problem is the timeline in step with R&D in regards to radiation protection, there is only three being worked on at this very moment. One is a suit, the other two are actual station skins protected by water, the other human waste. All three are still on paper with no scale models or prototypes built except on computer, maybe.
We could at least go for the surface of the moon which would not need as much fuel except for a few exceptions in which case it is already available, astronomical advantages, and use Zubrin's Tuna Cans idea for the moon as well as down the line for Mars.
And let's be honest from a engineering, scientific and launch point of view the surface of the moon has more pros than cons versus this idea.
On September 24 2012 11:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Except the unmanned fuel stations were for deep space missions not only on surface but also orbiting platforms which would cut costs unlike this proposal which has actual manned missions to and from stations for that exact purpose. Except there is no surface station(s) and no other missions OUTGOING.
The next problem is the timeline in step with R&D in regards to radiation protection, there is only three being worked on at this very moment. One is a suit, the other two are actual station skins protected by water, the other human waste. All three are still on paper with no scale models or prototypes built except on computer, maybe.
We could at least go for the surface of the moon which would not need as much fuel except for a few exceptions in which case it is already available, astronomical advantages, and use Zubrin's Tuna Cans idea for the moon as well as down the line for Mars.
And let's be honest from a engineering, scientific and launch point of view the surface of the moon has more pros than cons versus this idea.
Well, it is another gravity well to have to deal with. No sense going too deep in it unless you absolutely have to, excluding gravity assists ofc.
On September 24 2012 13:29 smokeyhoodoo wrote: Congress needs to stop changing nasa's agenda every couple years. I shudder to think about all the wasted time, money, talent, and resources.
That doesn't necessarily solve anything. After all, we were dedicated to wasting money on the shuttle program for 30 years.
Bigelow has no worry when it comes to funding but where is NASA going to get this cash with today's Congress/Politics?
Because of the SLS payload capability, future science spacecraft will be able to carry large propulsion systems and more fuel, enabling them to reduce their mission time and carry more instruments. To reach the outer planets, previous spacecraft have had to make multiple gravity-assist maneuvers around the inner planets to reach the velocity needed, costing valuable time. The SLS could increase mission time by years, since its larger propulsion systems would enable more direct trajectories.
Another advantage of SLS is the potential to reduce the number of separate launches complex missions will require. For example, with existing boosters, an outer planet sample mission would require many launches to assemble the spacecraft. With SLS, however, the mission could be achieved with fewer launches, or even just one, reducing complexity.
In addition to sample return, such large scientific spacecraft could deliver multiple rovers to the surface of Venus or carry the substantial shielding needed for operating long term in the harsh radiation environment of the Jupiter system.
Another commercial venture the SLS could help launch is a Bigelow Aerospace space station. NASA's Creech has confirmed to SPACE.com that the space agency has spoken to Bigelow.
The company has proposed a private space station, leased by governments and corporations for research, which would consist of four of Bigelow's inflatable BA330 modules, a docking node and a propulsion unit. Each BA330 has a total volume of 11,653 cubic feet (330 cubic meters). The first BA330 is to be launched on a Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) Falcon 9 rocket in 2015.
The SLS could also enable Lagrange point gateway architecture for manned exploration, said Jim Chilton, Boeing's space exploration vice president and Space Launch System stages program manager. Speaking at the astronautical congress, Chilton's presentation showed how two SLS launches, using 15-foot-long nose cones capable of fitting 154,000 pounds inside, would be able to deliver the modules for a Lagrange point platform. Located at the Earth-moon L2 Lagrange point, beyond our natural satellite's orbit, the platform would be a waypoint for refueling.
Under NASA's exploration plans, the manned Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, launching atop an SLS rocket, would go to an asteroid after a trip around the moon and back in 2021. The asteroid mission would be a deep-space trip for the astronauts; an intermediate test mission could see the crew go to such a platform at the L2 Lagrange point.
Beginning this month, engineers will conduct a series of tests on the second J-2X development engine, designated number 10002, on the A-2 Test Stand at NASA's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Once the series is completed, the engine will be transferred to the A-1 Test Stand to undergo a series of gimbal, or pivot, tests for the first time.
"The upcoming test series is not only a critical step forward, but important to the Stennis test team, as well," said Gary Benton, manager of the J-2X test project at Stennis. "This test series will help us increase our knowledge of the J-2X and its performance capabilities. In addition, the series will help us maintain the high skill level of our team as we look ahead to continued J-2X testing and testing of the RS-25 engines that will be used to power the SLS first-stage."
The first objective of the testing is to verify and demonstrate the engine's capability. Data from what is known as hot-fire engine tests will be compared to the performance of the first engine. Engineers also will vary liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen inlet pressures and subject the engine nozzle to higher temperatures than in previous tests to see what effect they have on performance.
As of right now the plan is to use the SLS system, so to build and make it work is now on a timetable, literally:
WASHINGTON — NASA is planning for a robotic spaceship to lasso a small asteroid and park it near the moon for astronauts to explore, a top senator said Friday.
The ship would capture the 500-ton, 25-foot asteroid in 2019. Then using an Orion space capsule, a crew of about four astronauts would nuzzle up next to the rock in 2021 for spacewalking exploration, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.
Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said the plan would speed up by four years the existing mission to land astronauts on an asteroid by bringing the space rock closer to Earth.
Nelson, who is chairman of the Senate science and space subcommittee, said Friday that President Barack Obama is putting $100 million in planning money for the accelerated asteroid mission in the 2014 budget that comes out next week. The money would be used to find the right small asteroid.
"It really is a clever concept," Nelson said in a press conference in Orlando. "Go find your ideal candidate for an asteroid. Go get it robotically and bring it back."
This would be the first time ever humanity has manipulated a space object in such a grand scale, like what it does on Earth, said Robert Braun, a Georgia Institute of Technology aerospace engineering professor who used to be NASA's chief technology officer.
"It's a great combination of our robotic and human capabilities to do the kind of thing that NASA should be doing in this century," Braun said.
Only one of four witnesses at a congressional hearing Tuesday expressed enthusiasm for the Obama Administration’s new Asteroid Retrieval Mission (ARM). No consensus emerged on an alternative, but ARM clearly faces an uphill battle. Meanwhile, NASA Advisory Council Chair Steve Squyres expressed deep concern about the low expected launch rate of the Space Launch System (SLS) and implored Congress not to “pile more objectives onto NASA” unless it is prepared to provide adequate funding.
The May 21 hearing before the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee featured four witnesses with different perspectives on the next steps in human spaceflight, even as they and the subcommittee members all seemed to agree on the eventual destination – Mars.
The debate is over the intermediate steps to get there.
Lou Friedman, Executive Director Emeritus of the Planetary Society and co-chair of the Keck Institute for Space Studies (KISS) report that proposed what morphed into ARM was the only advocate for that mission. ARM is included in NASA’s FY2014 budget request and envisions sending a robotic spacecraft to capture an asteroid, redirect it into lunar orbit, and send astronauts there to study it. Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute continued his quest for a human return to the surface of the Moon. Cornell’s Steve Squyres, principal investigator for the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity and chair of the NASA Advisory Council, agreed with two parts of the ARM proposal – searching for Near Earth Asteroids and sending astronauts to cis-lunar space (between the Earth and the Moon) – but eschewed the idea of capturing an asteroid and bringing it into lunar orbit for a visit by astronauts. Doug Cooke, a NASA veteran who retired in 2011 after heading NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate and is now a consultant, rued the lack of analysis and planning prior to announcing ARM and argued for development of a human exploration strategy that logically lays out the steps to Mars.
Subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle clearly are not convinced that ARM is the answer. Subcommittee chairman Steve Palazzo (R-MS) said he is “not convinced this mission is the right way to go and that it may actually prove a detour for a Mars mission.” Ranking member Donna Edwards (D-MD) avoided outright opposition to ARM, but stressed that she needs to understand how it, as opposed to alternatives like returning to the Moon, would contribute to the goal of sending humans to the surface of Mars.
I've said this in the private spaceflight thread but NASA's whole strategy needs to be rethought.
One direction would be for NASA to focus on missions that are achievable by current technology. NASA already does this a lot wrt to Earth observation, planetary missions like the Mars rovers or Cassini and New Horizons, as well as space based astronomy like the SWIFT and Kepler telescopes. Most of these are quite successful, with the clear exception of the James Webb Space Telescope.
Plan B would be to give NASA a generic long term goal, most likely to extend human presence in the Solar System in an economically sustainable way. This would require a dependable budget (ideally based on some broad political compromise) and plenty of leeway to focus on whatever projects work best in the long term. It shouldn't require a vast increase in the human spaceflight/space exploration budget, just long term stability. It should also mean consciously ignoring PR issues, like the possibility of Russia and China having a space station and the US not. If there are any national security considerations it should be the DOD's problem with their considerably higher budget. It would probably work best if NASA's astronomy and planetary science missions were handled by other organizations.
Plan C, which seems to be the current approach, is to set some specific goal and follow it to the end. Well, actually following through to the end might be an improvement to the current method, but that's a minor point. This is the approach the Apollo Program took. The question is then what is a goal that's worth the investment in itself (i.e, without appealing to side benefits or spin-offs). I would argue that there is none. Putting a human on Mars and then never returning isn't worth 25billion dollars. Neither is landing on an asteroid and returning samples. All these missions might make sense in a wider context (building a Mars base, mine asteroids, etc.) but this is better handled in a Plan B type of framework.
For all its success just reproducing the Apollo Program on Mars today would be a failure. It would make sense if there was a monolith waiting on Olympus Mons and simply getting to Mars would give a significant one time benefit. But alas there isn't so the only way to make it worthwhile is to go there often. Which is the same as to say 'go there cheaply'.
IMO, both A and B make sense and C doesn't. A might mean NASA having significantly less resources but frankly it's not like the hundreds of billions spent in the last 40 years had a huge impact. I honestly don't know if B is even feasible politically; it might not be.
NASA plans to begin testing RS-25 engines for its new Space Launch System (SLS) in the fall of 2014, and the agency's Stennis Space Center in Mississippi has a very big -- literally -- item to complete on the preparation checklist.
Fabrication recently began at Stennis on a new 7,755-pound thrust frame adapter for the A-1 Test Stand to enable testing of the engines that will provide core-stage power for NASA's SLS. The stand component is scheduled to be completed and installed by November 2013.
"We initially thought we would have to go offsite to have the equipment built," said Gary Benton, RS-25 test project manager at Stennis. "However, the Stennis design team figured out a way to build it here with resulting cost and schedule savings. It's a big project and a critical one to ensure we obtain accurate data during engine testing."
Each rocket engine type requires a thrust frame adapter unique to its specifications. On the test stand, the adapter is attached to the thrust measurement system. A rocket engine then is attached to the adapter, which must hold the engine in place and absorb the thrust produced during a test, while allowing accurate measurement of the engine performance.
The J-2X equipment installed on the A-1 Test Stand now cannot be used to test RS-25 engines since it does not match the engine specifications and thrust requirements. For instance, the J-2X engine is capable of producing 294,000 pounds of thrust. The RS-25 engine will produce approximately 530,000 pounds of thrust.
WASHINGTON — The debut launch of NASA's next big rocket — now slated for 2017 — likely will be delayed a year or two because the agency simply does not have the money to finish the rocket and its accompanying crew capsule on time, a top NASA official said Friday.
Lori Garver, leaving NASA after four years as deputy administrator, said NASA and Congress long have oversold the agency's ability to build the rocket, called the Space Launch System, and its Orion capsule on an annual budget of roughly $3 billion.
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama - NASA needs a new strategy to ensure its long-term prosperity, the keynote speaker said today at the von Braun Symposium on the campus of the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Wayne Hale, a former NASA space shuttle program manager and currently the director of human spaceflight at Special Aerospace Services, filled in for NASA Administrator Charles Bolden by challenging the space agency to reinvent itself to further the efforts of space exploration.
Bolden and other NASA officials who were scheduled to attend the three-day event were absent because of the government shutdown.
Hale outlined a mixed bag of NASA successes in wake of the Apollo moon missions, noting that the agency has languished for almost 40 years as different visions for NASA have died amid a lack of funding.
The current Space Launch System - a heavy lift rocket under development at Huntsville's Marshall Flight Center intended for deep space exploration - could soon fade away like other programs, such as Constellation in 2009.
"The current plan is fragile in the political and financial maelstrom that is Washington," Hale said. "Planning to fly large rockets once every three or four years does not make a viable program. It is not sustainable.
Considering this is the third failed Shuttle replacement in 20 years, I don't think NASA is going to pull anything off before someone else gets their rocket man-rated.
We need a new motivation for this. Mankind needs to understand that we cant stay on this planet forever, even though we still have quite some time. Hopefully.
MOSCOW, April 24 (RIA Novosti) – A project to build a new super-heavy carrier rocket was included into the draft new Federal Space Program (FSP) Roscosmos chief Oleg Ostapenko said on Thursday.
“A [super] heavy carrier rocket was included into the new FSP. Work is still under way, with the first stage envisaging the construction of a rocket capable of lifting from 70 to 80 metric tons,” Ostapenko said, adding that such rockets would be enough for projects scheduled for the next 20 or 30 years.
The second stage of the project is to build a carrier rocket capable of lifting from 100 to 120 metric tons of payload into the low-earth orbit.
A year ago, Russia said that it will develop new technology including huge new rockets for manned flights to the moon and Mars, by the same year that the Americans are aiming for Mars – 2030.
Super-heavy rockets are necessary for manned Mars or deep space missions, although they are likely to be uneconomical for commercial payloads that can be launched on existing rockets.
Roscosmos formed a working group last year to evaluate proposals for a heavy-lift rocket, including the revival of the Energia launcher, the highest payload rocket ever built in the country.
The Energia, developed in the Soviet Union and launched twice, was cancelled during the economic crisis twenty years ago.
Boeing [NYSE: BA] has finalized a contract with NASA to develop the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built and destined to propel America's return to human exploration of deep space.
The $2.8 billion contract validates Boeing's earlier selection as the prime contractor on the SLS core stage, including the avionics, under an undefinitized contract authorization. In addition, Boeing has been tasked to study the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, which will further expand mission range and payload capabilities.
The agreement comes as NASA and the Boeing team complete the Critical Design Review (CDR) on the core stage - the last major review before full production begins.
"Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time," said Virginia Barnes, Boeing SLS vice president and program manager. "We are passionate about NASA's mission to explore deep space. It's a very personal mission, as well as a national mandate."
During the CDR, which began June 2, experts examined and confirmed the final design of the rocket's cryogenic stages that will hold liquefied hydrogen and oxygen. This milestone marks NASA's first CDR on a deep-space human exploration launch vehicle since 1961, when the Saturn V rocket underwent a similar design review as the United States sought to land an astronaut on the moon. Boeing participated in that CDR as well, as the three stages of the Saturn V were built by Boeing and its heritage companies Douglas Aircraft and North American Aviation.
Boeing [NYSE: BA] has finalized a contract with NASA to develop the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built and destined to propel America's return to human exploration of deep space.
The $2.8 billion contract validates Boeing's earlier selection as the prime contractor on the SLS core stage, including the avionics, under an undefinitized contract authorization. In addition, Boeing has been tasked to study the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, which will further expand mission range and payload capabilities.
The agreement comes as NASA and the Boeing team complete the Critical Design Review (CDR) on the core stage - the last major review before full production begins.
"Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time," said Virginia Barnes, Boeing SLS vice president and program manager. "We are passionate about NASA's mission to explore deep space. It's a very personal mission, as well as a national mandate."
During the CDR, which began June 2, experts examined and confirmed the final design of the rocket's cryogenic stages that will hold liquefied hydrogen and oxygen. This milestone marks NASA's first CDR on a deep-space human exploration launch vehicle since 1961, when the Saturn V rocket underwent a similar design review as the United States sought to land an astronaut on the moon. Boeing participated in that CDR as well, as the three stages of the Saturn V were built by Boeing and its heritage companies Douglas Aircraft and North American Aviation.
Just want to say that you can find a nice PDF file on NASA's webpage talking about all of the wonderful spin-off technologies that were developed as a result of NASA's space programs here.
My favourite are the automated hospital robots that mill around getting people things . Its based on work done on NASA's rover technology that they're using in missions to Mars. I think Sunprince and Whitewing made a very convincing argument. In theory we could also fund many other areas in science; but it also makes no sense to artificially limit ourselves to only those areas and ignore all of the potential benefits to be gained through space exploration/colonization, and the government is the only entity with enough funds and long-term vision to sustain these types of projects.
Though it is very relevant to ask whether at this point in time NASA can accomplish much more than it already has. But I think the Asteroid reclamation project, if it goes through, would be a sufficiently new step to continue to birth new and interesting technologies, while simultaneously bringing us closer to the dream of colonizing other planets or mining asteroids for their rich resources. As long as we are making progress instead of launching rockets into space to do things we've already done then NASA still has a valuable role to play.
But regardless, the cultists in the Congress demand that NASA build the "Space Launch System," larger than the Saturn V that took men to the moon. There is no designated mission for it, and Congress hasn't properly funded any hardware that will actually fly on it, other than the Apollo-like Orion capsule. NASA's own plans have it flying once every couple years, a costly and very unreliable flight tempo and, like Apollo, costing billions per flight. Though the agency's own internal studies indicate that SLS-based plans are the most costly way to send humans into the solar system, the important thing to Congress is that it looks like Apollo, and not-so-coincidentally maintains jobs in the states and districts of those on the space committees.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has already shown the way to low-cost launch and plans to blazing a path to even lower costs through reusability, more in keeping with von Braun's original, more affordable vision until it was derailed by Apollo.
After over four decades, it is time to stop awaiting a repeat of a glorious but limited and improbable past. We must, finally, return to and embrace the true future, in which the solar system and ultimately the universe is opened up to all, with affordable, competing commercial transportation systems, in the way that only Americans can do it.
(AP)—NASA does not have enough money to get its new, $12 billion rocket system off the ground by the end of 2017 as planned, federal auditors say.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report Wednesday saying NASA's Space Launch System is at "high risk of missing" its planned December 2017 initial test flight. The post-space shuttle program would build the biggest rockets ever—larger than the Saturn V rockets which sent men to the moon—to send astronauts to asteroids and Mars.
"They can't meet the date with the money they have," report author Cristina Chaplain said. She said it wasn't because the space agency had technical problems with the congressionally-required program, but that NASA didn't get enough money to carry out the massive undertaking.
The GAO report put the current shortfall at $400 million, but did say NASA was "making solid progress" on the rocket program design.
NASA's launch system officials told the GAO that there was a 90 percent chance of not hitting the launch date at this time.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
On August 07 2011 02:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: More proof that as of right now NASA has no actual/reliable plan to return to Space.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
So the space station is a hoax too then by that logic? The thing we can see in orbit from earth? T_T
On August 07 2011 02:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: More proof that as of right now NASA has no actual/reliable plan to return to Space.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
The biggest nail in the coffin for landing deniers is that the Soviets said nothing. If there was ANY evidence at all that the landing was faked, they would've been all over that shit. But they said nothing. They, and many amateur radio enthusiasts followed Apollo 11 every step of the way, none of the transmissions were in code or encrypted or anything, anybody with a nice CB radio could listen in.
Also about the SLS budget short fall, this puts SpaceX 2 and a half years even 3, if testing is delayed, ahead of NASA. The Falcon Super Heavy testing site is already under construction and the engines itself are being built.
On July 27 2014 11:44 Millitron wrote: If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
(G)(m1)(m2)/r^2 is pretty close on the ISS as it is on the surface of the earth... the FORCE the earth is exerting on you has nothing to do with your APPARENT VELOCITY inside a space station.
now 2/3's of the way to the moon... you have 2 very weak gravity sources pulling you in opposite directions. force is a vector right? a completely different situation then being 250 km off the earth's surface... where the earth is a single prime source of gravitational pull .. just like standing on earth.
plug the #s in yourself... i'm too lazy.
as for the other guy saying the entire space program is a hoax... i disagree. the shuttle flights were all real... all the deaths were genuine. challenger did blow up into a bazillion pieces .... and so did Columbia. that stuff is all legit.
flying 250 km off the earth's surface is 100% legit... NASA deserves credit for attaining that difficult milestone. .. its been repeated many times by many independent organizations.
had no one travelled in an airplane more than 10 KM ... for the next 50 years after Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic ocean... i would have doubted Lindbergh's claim he did so.. but , i think that is legit.. i think Lindbergh did it... back in 1927
most of NASA's stuff is legit.. but like many large organizations there is some bullshit.
NASA and its various chronies keep saying "we are going back" .. they've been blabbing about it since 1989.
Here Buzz promises they'll be back to the moon by 2010
Buzz is a lousy liar... NASA has much better liars than him.. they should tell Buzz to shut up.
On July 27 2014 11:44 Millitron wrote: If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
(G)(m1)(m2)/r^2 is pretty close on the ISS as it is on the surface of the earth... the FORCE the earth is exerting on you has nothing to do with your APPARENT VELOCITY inside a space station.
now 2/3's of the way to the moon... you have 2 very weak gravity sources pulling you in opposite directions. force is a vector right? a completely different situation then being 250 km off the earth's surface... where the earth is a single prime source of gravitational pull .. just like standing on earth.
I would assume that everyone literate enough to sign up for and account on TL knows that this is nonsense, but the very existence of this post proves me wrong, so just to be clear: this is nonsense. As long as your body is reasonably small with respect to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field in question, there is absolutely zero difference between being in a place without gravitational fields and freefalling in one (and orbiting a planet is essentially freefalling) - that's the famous Einstein's principle upon which the whole General Relativity is built (neverthless it it quite obviously true even in Newton's mechanics).
JJR: If you want to question the Moon landing, you can be my guest, but next time (which seems to be after at least two weeks for you) please learn high school physics first.
NASA officials Wednesday announced they have completed a rigorous review of the Space Launch System (SLS) — the heavy-lift, exploration class rocket under development to take humans beyond Earth orbit and to Mars — and approved the program’s progression from formulation to development, something no other exploration class vehicle has achieved since the agency built the space shuttle.
“We are on a journey of scientific and human exploration that leads to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “And we’re firmly committed to building the launch vehicle and other supporting systems that will take us on that journey.”
For its first flight test, SLS will be configured for a 70-metric-ton (77-ton) lift capacity and carry an uncrewed Orion spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit. In its most powerful configuration, SLS will provide an unprecedented lift capability of 130 metric tons (143 tons), which will enable missions even farther into our solar system, including such destinations as an asteroid and Mars.
This decision comes after a thorough review known as Key Decision Point C (KDP-C), which provides a development cost baseline for the 70-metric ton version of the SLS of $7.021 billion from February 2014 through the first launch and a launch readiness schedule based on an initial SLS flight no later than November 2018.
On a tour of the Aerojet Rocketdyne assembly building at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in southern Mississippi, site manager Mike McDaniel stops at a double row of shrouded shapes and big white metal boxes inside a garage-like room. In each is an RS-25, the space shuttle’s main engine. With the exception of one more engine to be assembled from spare parts, the room we’re standing in holds the entire world supply—15 in all—of flight-proven, reusable big booster engines. While the value is hard to calculate, given that production lines for replacement engines haven’t restarted, there’s certainly more than a billion dollars’ worth of hardware tucked into a space no bigger than a 7-Eleven.
The engines are critical to NASA’s next plan for human spaceflight and illustrate an important principle guiding the design of the nation’s next booster: Rather than reach for advances in rocketry, engineers are to use proven technology. The RS-25 engines, which performed almost flawlessly during 135 shuttle launches, are a gold standard for reliability and power that NASA wants to preserve, even after the small inventory is used up. Yet the last enhancement to the engines was made in the 1990s, and the new launch vehicle—uninspiredly named the Space Launch System—is expected to be the first one capable of sending humans beyond the moon. The contradiction between its design constraint and its ambitious mission puts engineers like McDaniel in a tough spot. They are using space shuttle hardware for a vehicle tasked with a human spaceflight mission far more daunting than putting astronauts in orbit around Earth. But you won’t hear complaints at Stennis, where the engines are tested, or at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where the SLS program is managed.
“We had a school group in here one day to see the engines, and a girl raised her hand,” McDaniel recalls. “She said, ‘There are supposed to be 15 here but I only count 14.’ That’s the kind of person we want in this program, who doesn’t take things for granted.”
As with the Saturn, the SLS will be topped with a conical capsule for manned flight, called Orion (see “America’s Next Spaceship,” Aug. 2014). But down lower, the Space Launch System has more visibly in common with the space shuttle, with two solid rocket boosters strapped to its sides. The rocket’s first stage (which NASA calls the core) is a stretched version of the shuttle’s external tank and has the same diameter, so that shuttle-era tooling can be reused. At the base of the core are four space shuttle main engines (SSMEs). It will use a single upper stage to boost Orion into deep space.
A number of technologies that hadn’t been developed when the shuttle was designed, such as stir-friction welding for the SLS core and 3D printed parts for Orion, does push the SLS beyond the shuttle’s world. “This is brand-new, modernized equipment, resulting in much more reliability and capability at much less cost,” says Charlie Precourt, a former shuttle commander and today vice president and general manager of ATK, the solid booster manufacturer. At ATK, he says, workers are adding a fifth segment to give the solid rocket booster more capability. Precourt says the work will be done using only one-fourth the number of employees required during the shuttle era.
A multi-purpose, disposable vehicle, the SLS is sure to be expensive, but just how expensive is not yet known. Boeing is building two core stages under a $2.8 billion contract. According to budget documents, the SLS program annual cost is less than half that of the shuttle program, which ran to $4 billion annually in its last years. But the shuttle flew successfully 133 times over three decades, and (barring some political sea change) the SLS isn’t expected to launch more often than once every two years. The Government Accountability Office estimated the SLS’s cost through the first launch at $12 billion, and the total tab through 2020 at $22 billion. But in July, the GAO warned that NASA would miss the 2017 launch unless the SLS program gets an additional $400 million.
The first SLS mission is a test. It will send an unmanned Orion capsule looping far around the moon, then back to Earth for a splashdown. The second mission? Less firm. While some House members are urging that the second mission send a robot probe to explore Jupiter’s moon Europa, which may harbor life beneath its frozen surface, NASA’s current plan is to carry astronauts to visit an asteroid orbiting the moon. (A separate robot spacecraft would go out first, grab the rock, and haul it into lunar orbit.)
I don't see the point in this program running while they are also hiring external companies to get into near space. The more we hear about it the less sense it makes...
In all honesty, instead of wasting so much money on something like this, they could've just bought the old buran plans. Buran was launched on the Energyia launch platform, which by itself is capable of lifting more than SLS block II even. In fact, even by todays standards, the Energyia in its Vulcan configuration fares extremely well if not better than the SLS system, with 1970s tech (and a fraction of the costs).
I didn't follow the thread though, since SLS as much as Energyia are dumb systems by todays standards - are there any mission parameters out there that call for heavy lifters of that magnitude apart from another dumb shuttle-idea?
It's sad because the Shuttle stack could lift a lot of stuff into orbit but most of it was just the huge heavy wings of the orbiter. It's really weird to launch a payload bay that's so heavy to put relatively small payloads into orbit. Weirdly we never tried using the external tanks for anything in orbit either.
Heavy lift I think you need for any mission outside of low earth orbit. One thing is if you put people just in Mars orbit the amount of science they can do with the rovers on the surface goes up by like an order of magnitude compared to the science we do from Earth when with a 30 minute radio delay.
That didn't answer my question though. There is nothing outside the LEO planned for the near and forseeable future, manned missions to mars are still decades away. The STS btw wasn't build to bring stuff into LEO, but to bring it back from LEO. The only upside of the shuttle was, that it could bring down relatively large payloads (i think 14 tons cargo on reentry). Literally the only reason to "justify" it. Apart from that, it was a failure (i still think it's iconic and did advance spaceflight/exploration, but it's still a failure).
The SLS literally has no justification for itself that i could tell of. There are working HLVs out there (Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5), there's other ones coming (Falcon Heavy, Ariane 5ME), and there's "bigger ones" in the past, including 1970s tech like the Energyia or the Saturn V even.
Manned Mars missions are still decades away, by that time SLS etc will be "old tech" as well (pretty much like the Saturn V is today). Mars-One doesn't count.
My question for mission parameters btw was genuine, i simply can not comprehend what the SLS could do that existing systems can't, for a fraction of the price.
edit: i would actually dare to say that an orbital fuel depot including orbital assembly of things would be the smarter way to spend all that money. To me the SLS simply looks the same as the shuttle did, something that nobody needs but still gets built because "we definately need it!".
Delta IV isn't man-rated and doesn't lift that much. Falcon Heavy is a good point but it's not quite the same lift. As far as I understand the point of super heavy lift is so you have enough payload to put an entire upper stage into orbit so you can launch a bunch of people and shit out of orbit.
There has been a technical ability to get to Mars within a decade ever since Mars Direct was figured out, it's just about political feasibility and working through stagnant NASA management. SLS will not be old tech because it will be upgraded, just like every other rocket family. That's like saying Atlas 5 is old tech because John Glenn rode an Atlas missile into space. Or Soyuz is old because they used it in the 60s. Everything gets upgraded and uprated. If we were still using Saturn hardware by today it would have evolved to be powerful enough to launch like 300,000kg.
Let me use a historical analogy, STS (shuttle) was originally just going to be a way to send people to LEO which was actually part of a big system of propellant depots and nuclear tugs and space stations on all kinds of planets and shit if you know that. But all the other stuff was impossible to sell so we just got a bastardized shuttle. Now after they got the shuttle they had to figure out shit to do with it besides carrying spy satellites so it became stuff like fix Hubble, visit Mir, launch probes, they did whatever they could with the system at hand.
SLS will be similar because we don't have a clear goal which would put an end to it (like the moon landings where although the program was very aggressive, it burned out politically so it ended up being closure). Having the capability alone gives a flexibility in any political or budget climate. So depending on the money the actual destinations can change. But the first destination will probably be a near-Earth object.
Mars orbit is about as close as lunar orbit. It's easy to visit the moons of Mars and to visit near-Earth asteroids and to visit the moon.
It also enables some special deep space probes, like the original plan for the Voyager probes was to launch them off of Saturn Vs. We could do sample return from the outer solar system (like Jovian moons).
I do wish we could have had something a little cheaper and more competitive and better, I mean something new and upgraded instead of the same old. And there will be upgrades in the future. But either way the rocket can do the same things. I am not sure you're justified in saying existing systems that do things. Paper rockets and mothballed rockets aren't really existing systems. Yes Energia is cool. Yes Saturn V is cool. Yes Falcon Heavy will be cool (but not quite as powerful). If you could explain what you want when you say "mission parameters" maybe I can answer better.
With mission parameters, i mean "purpose". So far, you didn't really cite any purpose that couldn't be achieved with "existing" (as in, in use/reliable) systems already at hand.
A little cheaper might btw be the understatement of the year, considering that the SLS program including four launches is estimated at what, 41bn dollars? Not to mention, "SLS is upgradable", yes it would be. That would make the existing SLS even more idiotic though, don't you think? You build now an HLV which has no purpose, because there's simply zero(!) demand for a rocket like this - to then sink more dollars into the system at some point when there might be something coming up. That didn't happen with the Atlas 5, or soyuz. They were built to be used at that time, not to be used as an upgraded version 50 years in the future.
Someone could argue, well, if the SLS could do what existing rockets can do, but cheaper - there you might have an argument. Does it though? We both know (well i do, but you sound like you do too) that it isn't cheaper. In fact, it's more expensive. It's estimated for now at 8500$ per pound, which tops even the STS (8000$ per pound). Protons lift for ~2000$ per pound. That's four protons launched for every SLS block I. That's roughly 70 tons for SLS, and 85 tons for the four protons. Of course, there's downsides to both of them, but the mere fact that even if you have >a< mission for the SLS (and there won't be many, if any), you won't need the SLS anymore after it. Because there's kinda no point in lighting a 150 ton candle to get some dudes up there.
With existing systems, i'm obviously talking about existing lifters, not paper rockets. I also disagree that "having the capability alone gives flexibility in any political or budget climate". The same has been said for the Shuttle - "shit will come up and then we have it ready". It's actually exactly the opposite, considering how fricking expensive the SLS is. There's so many smarter ways to burn all that money that get dumped into the SLS. Hell, in my mind, it would've been smarter to just throw all that money at NERVAs. At least the NASA would've had something "special" there. The SLS isn't special apart from the fact that it burns through money. Alot of it. And that all of that money goes into a system that has very narrow operational parameters (as i said, you won't use it for satellites, nor "normal heavy lifting" - because Delta, Ariane etc are alot cheaper - you'd use it for "superheavy lifting"). So much so, that i actually can't think of a single thing that the SLS would excel in. There won't be a "returning something from mars" mission in the next 25 years, there won't be anything manned to the mars in at least 40. They're so desperate that in the mission parameters, they actually are talking about how the SLS could support trips to the ISS if necessary. Uhm, .. Okay.
It basically all boils down to one thing for me: is it worth pumping 41 billion dollars into something that can't do more than existing systems like atlas, ariane, delta or falcon (which all also are cheaper)? We're not talking theoretically here, but practically. Yes the SLS might be able to lift more than those, but there's literally no mission coming up for decades that would require a lifter like the SLS.
Okay I gave you examples of missions that are enabled by a super heavy lifter and all you can say is those missions won't happen (which is divination) and they're not happening soon (which is meaningless as the rocket doesn't exist yet).
This is not an indictment of super heavy lift though. Imagine you had a friend and he was thinking about buying a car. So you said to him, " you're not planning any major round trip road trips from Florida to Alaska, so you would be better off renting because renting is cheaper." That wouldn't make sense, he doesn't need to rent a car either; since he's not going on a road trip he doesn't need a car at all. Or maybe he saved a bunch of money and wants to buy a car so that after that he can go wherever he pleases.
It is a tacit and unproven assumption that you can just do some arithmetic accounting about mass and therefore use smaller rockets. How do you know you can just divide whatever you need in orbit into 4 smaller launches? For instance, what's a good way to build a space station in orbit? 40 shuttle launches or 3 Saturn launches? ISS is about the size of 3 Skylabs.
On October 21 2014 07:41 m4ini wrote: Not to mention, "SLS is upgradable", yes it would be. That would make the existing SLS even more idiotic though, don't you think?
I don't think you get to double back on this. I brought up the fact that you can upgrade a rocket because you were calling it old tech. Now when I tell you it will get more advanced and more powerful with age you say it's idiotic? Whether you think it's too expensive or not it does have a purpose for flying now, which is beyond LEO exploration as well as the other stuff I listed.
Yeah nuclear thermal rockets are great and I hope one flies. It would be a great upper stage for SLS. Propellant depots would be cool but they are as yet unproven.
Yes, please, spend all the governments cash on useless resources. There is people in Congress that are straight up assholes. There needs to come a point in time where U.S Citizens can say where they want their taxes distributed and not have a bunch of bozos sending it off outside of the US.
On December 12 2014 02:30 ShoCkeyy wrote: Yes, please, spend all the governments cash on useless resources. There is people in Congress that are straight up assholes. There needs to come a point in time where U.S Citizens can say where they want their taxes distributed and not have a bunch of bozos sending it off outside of the US.
Yea you have to just accept it sadly. I was working for NASA Ames on Project Orion when they announced P.O. (or CEV) was going to be canned. Man it was a disappointing meeting room with about 30 people, I was only there 2 years at the time but yea it was rough. It was great to see Orion do it's first test mission recently, I had pretty much figured all the hard work we poured into that program was never going to be taken advantage of. It is infuriating when people don't realize the value of doing space projects like this though...
WASHINGTON — As U.S. lawmakers criticized the Obama administration at a Dec. 10 hearing for not requesting sufficient funding for NASA’s Orion and Space Launch System programs, a top NASA official said no amount of additional funding at this point would allow them to be ready for a 2017 launch.
William Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, told members of the House Science space subcommittee that the middle of 2018 was now the agency’s planned launch readiness date for the SLS.
“We were holding December of 2017. I would say we’ve now moved off of that date,” he said. “That’s just based on the reality of problems that have come along in the program, and some uncertainty in funding.”
At the hearing, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) asked how much funding would be required to bring the first SLS/Orion mission, called Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), back to December 2017.
“In terms of the technical work, I think we’ve really probably moved off of December 2017,” Gerstenmaier responded, “so I don’t think funding will pull us back to that date.”
Orion will not complete its KDP-C review, and thus have an estimated readiness date for EM-1, until spring. However, Orion program manager Mark Geyer said at a Dec. 2 briefing at the Kennedy Space Center that the spacecraft would not be ready for that mission until 2018.
That assessment was shared by Cristina Chaplain, director of acquisition and sourcing management at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. “At this time, it does not look like they can make 2017, and 2018 is even a challenge in and of itself,” she said of Orion at the hearing.
NASA started this ambitious project without the money they need.
They have no goal for human space flight. They will say whatever they think will help to get a budget: explore & deflect asteroids, go to Mars eventually, repair satellites, go back to the moon, build a moon-base, do orbital refueling,
They want to build this big launcher using the overly complex Space Shuttle engines, with it's absurd number of moving parts. They will build this huge rocket that needs to be human-rated.
Basically they are building an Saturn-analog but this time with digital computers to go back to the moon. There's people that really want to go to Mars 'to show that we can do it'.
Problem with human space flight is that it isn't going to be profitable beyond space tourism for a long long time and maybe forever.
Almost no one knows the names of the people that are in orbit right now. People don't care and don't want to pay for it. People understand that we need superexpensive things like the LHC. But people don't understand why we need the ISS and NASA or pro-human space flight people can't give a good explanation. Landng and leaving Mars is very hard to do. It takes a huge budget. That's why people talk about cruising beyond earth or fly humans around Phobos or something. It's all kind of silly.
SLS again is super-expensive compared to SpaceX. The rocket is old technology. I am not an engineer but I don't get why we need a human-rated heavy launcher. Private sector can build a Saturn rocket-type heavy launcher. You can use the SRBs and all that other cheap unsafe stuff. Then you need a human rated rocket that just launches the humans themselves. Do this for a fixed price contract. Not the way it currently works where NASA pays for whatever it costs a contractor to build what NASA asks for. In fact, let the private sector fund it. If we need space tourism, why should NASA do it? If someone wants to go to Mars 'for the heck of it', let them pay for it.
Then taxpayer money can be spend on what matters; technology innovation and science. Keep human spaceflight out of it. Humans are too expensive and too helpless in space to be useful.
Even if SLS gets a budget now, it will again be at risk before it does its first launch. In the mean time, we can discover alien life using space telescopes. James Webb, the telescope that ate astronomy, is still not finished and may also be at risk of cancellation.
And besides all that, something is terribly wrong with NASA in terms of inefficiency. It seems to be bordering on corruption, the way NASA just wastes money. While Congress is in the wrong here also, it was embarrassing to see Gerstenmaier answer some of these questions. As a scientist I have a lot of difficulty explaining why more money needs to go this way when so much money is wasted. All I have is the basic shallow 'we only spend .4% bla bla bla' or 'teflon and memory foam blabla'.
The case for JWST isn't great either. I guess there might be enough sunken cost now that it doesn't make sense to cancel it but $9bn for a space telescope is a fucking travesty. LSST, EELT, Gaia or SKA cost or will cost a fraction of that with comparable or better science return.
IMO the underlying problem is the same: in order to secure funding you have to ally yourself with people or organizations who don't really care about science or space technology. They might do a good job on a technical level to protect their reputation but they won't steer the political process towards completing the project. From an aerospace contractor's point of view a space telescope that burns through five times its original budget and never flies is a huge success. Especially if they can reasonably claim that the delays and budget overruns weren't their faults.
Which is technically true, even if the people who are at fault end up working for them in the future as a reward.
On December 12 2014 16:24 hypercube wrote: The case for JWST isn't great either. I guess there might be enough sunken cost now that it doesn't make sense to cancel it but $9bn for a space telescope is a fucking travesty. LSST, EELT, Gaia or SKA cost or will cost a fraction of that with comparable or better science return.
IMO the underlying problem is the same: in order to secure funding you have to ally yourself with people or organizations who don't really care about science or space technology. They might do a good job on a technical level to protect their reputation but they won't steer the political process towards completing the project. From an aerospace contractor's point of view a space telescope that burns through five times its original budget and never flies is a huge success. Especially if they can reasonably claim that the delays and budget overruns weren't their faults.
Which is technically true, even if the people who are at fault end up working for them in the future as a reward.
I don't understand the policy of paying cost + %. Any company that did that would be out of business within a year. You set the prize you are willing to pay before you start. If nobody can build at that price you do something similar with the money since you no longer have your payback for the original thing. There are musts of course but nothing NASA currently does fall into that category.
If somebody can build at that cost you write a contract for it and that is that. Any money over from that point on is on the company that signed the contract with you. As the government it is easy to put pressure on a company to deliver something they agreed on.
NASA announced today that its schedule for the first crewed mission of SLS and Orion will slip to 2023; this represents a two year slip from previous plans for the first mission by 2021. The agency announced similar delays last fall. Smith has repeatedly criticized the Obama administration for failure to request adequate funding for Orion and the Space Launch System; the administration's FY16 budget request proposed cuts of more than $440 million for the programs.
Expect to hear, slowly, that techs and other personel being moved over to the SpaceX project meaning the SLS is just a jobs project and a way to try and figure out what to do next. Not to mention that if SpaceX is successful; there is nothing stopping them from poaching staff to work on a/the Mars Colonial Transporter which could easily be started in a few years if the Red Dragon series works.
At first glance, SLS looks awesome. A core stage flanked by two boosters on top of which sits a small kick stage or a larger second stage that can send cargo or an Orion manned spacecraft to Mars and beyond (pictured top). It’s versatile and more powerful than anything that has preceded it. But it’s expendable and far from completion.
It’s also really expensive. From inception to first unmanned launch currently planned for 2017, it’s expected to cost around $10 billion. Once operational, it will launch once every year with a price tag between $1.3 billion and $2.45 billion every time. That’s not including the money put towards research, development, and building the payload and all the associated systems. And that’s what Chris Kraft has a problem with.
Kraft was NASA’s first flight director. He was the one calling the shots in mission control during the Mercury program in an era when they were writing procedures and handbooks during missions and finding creative solutions to problems as they occurred. He was there when mission control moved to the Johnson Spacecraft Centre (JSC) in 1961 as the Manned Spacecraft Centre. Since then, it’s been the nerve center of mission operations.
Now, says Kraft, SLS is threatening the kill the JSC and destroy the 50 year legacy of innovation that has come out of the center.
In NASA’s current situation of severe fiscal constraints, the $4 billion to $5 billion annual cost for the SLS program isn’t something the agency can afford. Neither is the proposed human exploration program built on the rocket’s capacity. The cost of SLS is crowding out the technology of these long-term missions like lunar landers and deep space capable multi-mission vehicles. At the current rate, manned missions beyond Earth orbit aren’t likely before the 2030s.
Just let NASA be a consultation and transportation agency. Private sector aeronautics is the only way we get beyond the moon and into space to do anything relatively ambitious or practical.
Or stop having congress tell NASA what to focus on. I wouldn't mind them being consult or R&D... But don't have them waste time and money on something that's going to be developed...
WASHINGTON — Managers of three key NASA exploration programs said May 10 that they are making good progress towards a first launch of the Space Launch System heavy-lift rocket as soon as September 2018.
Managers of the SLS, Orion, and Ground Systems Development and Operations (GSDO) programs said at a Space Transportation Association luncheon here that while the programs are working towards a first launch of SLS and Orion, called Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), in November 2018, they believe that they could launch up to two months earlier.
“The agency’s baseline commitment is November of 2018,” said Mike Bolger, manager of the GSDP program. “The September date we’ve talked internally about, and pressed them to see if we can make it by September. It gives us a little margin at the end.”
His comments came after an earlier presentation by Mark Kirasich, the Orion program manager, who discussed preparations for the EM-1 launch, including photos of the pressure vessel of the spacecraft being assembled at the Kennedy Space Center.
“This is the pressure vessel that, about 28 months from now, will be on its way towards the moon and into a distant retrograde orbit around the moon,” he said, a timeframe that corresponds to a September 2018 launch.
NASA has not provided a firm launch date for the EM-1 mission, which will be the first flight of the SLS and the second for Orion, after a brief December 2014 test flight in Earth orbit. The November 2018 date is tied to a review of the SLS program completed in August 2014, which concluded there was a 70 percent chance SLS would be ready for its first flight by November 2018.
The best part?
Congress directed NASA to spend at least $85 million on EUS in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus spending bill, and have it ready in time for the second SLS mission, EM-2. NASA, however, did not request enough funding in its fiscal year 2017 budget request to support development of the EUS in time for EM-2, even as it directed agency engineers to stop work on human rating the interim upper stage that will be flown on EM-1.
Of all the Apollo astronauts that walked on the Moon, none has made more of his fame than Buzz Aldrin, who followed Neil Armstrong onto the lunar surface in 1969. But long before he danced with the stars and inspired Buzz Lightyear, and even before he served as the Apollo 11 lunar module pilot, Aldrin was known as an expert in orbital rendezvous.
In recent years, Aldrin has used his astronautics expertise and fame to push a cycler concept that he believes would be the best way to visit and eventually inhabit Mars. In his public lectures, however, Aldrin has largely avoided criticizing the present approach being taken by NASA with the development of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft and its two-decade "Journey to Mars."
That changed at this week's Humans to Mars conference. In his remarks, Aldrin said NASA should change the approach it has had in place since the 1960s, that of designing and managing development of its own rockets. He took direct aim at the SLS vehicle, which he reminded listeners was based on 1970s technology and the space shuttle rather than more modern concepts. "It competes with the private sector," Aldrin said. "I thought most of us were in the process of learning that the government shouldn't do that."
Aldrin was referring to efforts by SpaceX to develop the Falcon Heavy rocket, which has a launch capacity of 54 metric tons to low-Earth orbit (the SLS will have an initial capacity of 70 metric tons). Independent estimates suggest the SLS will cost more than the Falcon Heavy for each launch by at least a factor of 10. During his remarks Aldrin also suggested NASA's Orion spacecraft didn't serve much of a purpose, in his view, for a Mars exploration program. "It's rather marginal for its use at Mars," Aldrin said, adding that he viewed commercial spacecraft as better options for transporting astronauts into low-Earth orbit and onto the Moon as staging locations for Mars missions. "I'm not sure I see where Orion fits in there," he said.
Aldrin, who came to NASA in 1963 as a member of the space agency's third astronaut class, also reflected on what NASA's purpose should be in the 21st century. Before NASA existed there was NACA, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics. This government agency had responsibility for testing aircraft developed by the US and for promoting the aviation industry through applied research.
"We were NACA before we were NASA," Aldrin said. "I think we should slowly revert back to the NACA advisory model, and perhaps a NASA center that's competing with the private sector would do much better in the very exciting area of space propulsion and spacecraft, including how we get from one place to another."
Further, Aldrin advised, NASA would perhaps do better to focus on game-changing technologies such as how to land on Mars, how to refuel in space and on the surface of the Moon and Mars, how to harvest water ice on those worlds, and how to develop nuclear reactors for use in space.
As a comparative to what we know is SpaceX which is using around $437 million dollars less just to get a Red Dragon program up and running and to Mars, with no used parts etc.
At the request of Congress, the nonpartisan US Government Accountability Office reviews the finances and management of federal programs, and this week it released a study critical of NASA’s crew capsule, Orion. Most worryingly, the 56-page report (PDF) regularly draws parallels between the Orion program and another large NASA project, the James Webb Space Telescope. The successor to the Hubble Space Telescope is notorious for ballooning from a 10-year, $500 million project to a 20-year, $8.8 billion (£6.7 billion) instrument that may finally launch in 2018.
Although Orion has not yet experienced such dramatic increases in costs, the spacecraft is now into its second decade of development. NASA estimates that it will spend a total of $16 billion (£12 billion) to ready Orion for its first crewed flight in April 2023. However, the GAO review, signed by Director of Acquisition and Sourcing Management Cristina T. Chaplain, did not find these numbers to be reliable.
The federal auditing agency based this conclusion on the fact that only a handful of NASA’s methods for estimating costs and schedule were consistent with “best practices.” Moreover, the GAO found, in making a number of its estimates, NASA appears to be relying too heavily on data analysis from the primary contractor for Orion, Lockheed Martin. In regard to Orion’s cost and schedule estimates, then, the GAO report concludes, “They do not fully reflect the characteristics of quality cost or schedule estimates and neither estimate can be considered reliable.”
Some of the major Orion concerns cited by the GAO study are well-known, such as delays by NASA’s partner, the European Space Agency, in building the service module that will help power Orion in space. Less widely known, however, are significant cost overruns with Orion’s primary contractor, Lockheed Martin. The GAO’s analysis of contractor data found that the Orion program faces potential cost overruns of up to $707 million by 2020.
The report comes at an important time for Orion, which will likely face questions about its viability during the next 18 months as a new president comes into office and reviews NASA’s programs. Congress supports NASA’s development of the vehicle, but there is considerable back-channel discussion in the aerospace community about the time and expense that has gone into developing what is a capable but relatively straightforward spacecraft.
WASHINGTON — A report from NASA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) April 13 concluded that the first two missions of the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft will likely slip from their currently scheduled dates.
The report on NASA’s human exploration programs, the outcome of a nine-month audit by OIG, also recommended that NASA provide more details about its long-term plans to send humans to Mars, citing constrained budgets and the need to develop a number of key technologies to enable such missions.
NASA’s current schedule calls for the launch of the first SLS/Orion mission, Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1), no later than November 2018 without a crew. That would be followed by EM-2, the first SLS/Orion mission to carry astronauts, as soon as August 2021.
The OIG report, though, was skeptical NASA could maintain that schedule. “NASA’s first exploration missions – EM-1 and EM-2 – face multiple technical challenges that will likely delay their launch,” the report stated.
The report outlines a number of technical challenges that SLS, Orion and associated ground systems are facing that makes it unlikely NASA can maintain its current schedule for those missions. Work on SLS, it said, has consumed nearly all of the 11 months of schedule reserve it originally had. “With only 30 days of schedule reserves available, the SLS Program may be hard pressed to meet a November 2018 launch date,” OIG concluded.
Orion also faces issues. “NASA considers Orion to be one of the biggest challenges to meeting the EM-1 flight date of no later than November 2018,” the report stated. Delays in the development of the Orion service module, provided by the European Space Agency are the leading factor in the overall Orion delay, as well as technical risks involved with changes in the design of Orion’s heat shield.
In addition to SLS and Orion issues, the OIG report stated that work on ground systems at the Kennedy Space Center has only one month of schedule reserve remaining. Development of software needed for SLS, Orion and ground systems have also suffered delays that could delay the first SLS/Orion launch. “We are concerned NASA will not be able to resolve all necessary [exploration systems] software validation and verification efforts in time to meet a November 2018 launch date for EM-1,” OIG said in the report.
Recent events could exacerbate those delays. The report briefly mentions damage from a Feb. 7 tornado that hit the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. It estimated repairs to Michoud buildings could result in a two-month delay in work on the SLS, whose core stage is built there.
NASA officials have provided similar estimates on the potential delays caused by the tornado. “The tornado probably cost us two to three months,” said Bill Hill, deputy associate administrator for exploration systems development, in a March 29 presentation to the NASA Advisory Council’s Human Exploration and Operations Committee. “We’re still evaluating that and seeing what the options are.”
Another wild card that could delay EM-1 is a decision to put a crew on that first flight. NASA is currently examining such a move, which would delay the mission regardless of other technical issues. The target date for a crewed EM-1 mission is mid-2019, according to ground rules for that study cited in the OIG report.
The report said that, as of early April, the study about putting a crew on EM-1 was still in progress. “To achieve a crewed EM-1 flight, in our judgment NASA must address not only the additional risks associated with human travel but also a host of existing risks to planned missions,” OIG said in the report, citing work needed on Orion’s life support systems and a decision to either human-rate the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage that will be used on EM-1 or accelerate work on the Exploration Upper Stage.
It's dead Jim. I'm all for more funding of NASA but this is billions down the drain for a craft, if ever launched, will be dead on arrival. SpaceX and Blue Origin will be light years ahead of NASA even with delays. Bigelow could even be building it's own station if things keep going as well as they are. NASA should have gone big with a new design and ship.
WASHINGTON — NASA and Boeing are investigating a recent mishap at the Michoud Assembly Facility that damaged a portion of a liquid oxygen tank being developed for the Space Launch System.
Kim Henry, a spokesperson for NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, said May 10 that NASA and Boeing, the prime contractor for the SLS core stage, have established independent investigation teams to review an incident at Michoud one week earlier involving the rear dome of a liquid oxygen qualification tank. The mishap was first reported by NASA Watch.
The agency didn’t provide additional details about the incident, which took place in the Vertical Assembly Center at Michoud, used to weld large components of the SLS. The Vertical Assembly Center was shut down when the incident took place, Henry said. “NASA is evaluating next steps to safely resume operations.”
The damage was limited to the one dome section of the tank, which was not yet welded to the rest of the tank. “Assessments are ongoing to determine the extent of the damage,” she said.
Henry said that the incident was classified as a “Type B” mishap. Such a mishap, according to NASA documents, covers incidents that cause between $500,000 and $2 million in damage. No one was injured, she said.
The liquid oxygen tank involved in the incident was a qualification model, intended for testing, and not flight hardware. Henry said it wasn’t immediately clear how long the investigation would take.
Eric Berger has a good piece on SLS over at Arstechnica:
During the teleconference, Ars asked Gerstenmaier to step back and take a big-picture look at the SLS rocket. Even with all of the funding—about $10 billion through next year—how was the agency likely to miss the original deadline by as much as three years, if not more?
"I don’t know," Gerstenmaier replied. "I don’t know—I would just say it’s really kind of the complexity of what we’re trying to go do, and to build these systems. We weren’t pushing state-of-the-art technology, like main engines sitting underneath the rocket or new solid rocket boosters. But we were pushing a lot of new manufacturing, and I think that new manufacturing has caused some of the delays we’ve seen. No one welds the way that we’re welding material at the thicknesses we’re welding."
The SLS is not death,far from. It is just delayed and running over budget. Like every space program ever,both private and government. What nasa is trying to do with the SLS is way and way bigger then the rockets of origin and space x. Twice the payload at minimum,the SLS is the only rocket system currently in development that has a chance to bring people to mars. With current rocket technology there is only one way to go if you want to go somewhere far and with a lot of stuff and that is to go big. Nasa is taking the right and only path I think,and it just shows what a long way the private companys still have to go.
On May 14 2017 01:33 pmh wrote: What nasa is trying to do with the SLS is way and way bigger then the rockets of origin and space x.
I'm not sure NASA is trying to do anything with SLS. They were told point blank by Congress to build a new large rocket and to use the contractors of the Space Shuttle to do it.
Twice the payload at minimum,the SLS is the only rocket system currently in development that has a chance to bring people to mars.
Inaccurate on both counts. There are other rockets in development that could be part of a manned Mars mission, like SpaceX's ITS, New Glenn by Blue Origin or ULA's Vulcan with the ACES upper stage. SLS is much further along in development than any of these though. Given the recent delays I wouldn't be surprised to see New Glenn fly before SLS though.
But the problem is that a single SLS launch cannot get humans to Mars orbit (let alone on the surface in a lander than can get back). For that you need to design, build and assemble in space a new spacecraft. This would take multiple SLS launches and plenty of new technology.
The only system that is actually capable of supporting a manned Mars mission in itself is the ITS. Unfortunately, it's also the one that's least likely to be built.
With current rocket technology there is only one way to go if you want to go somewhere far and with a lot of stuff and that is to go big. Nasa is taking the right and only path I think,and it just shows what a long way the private companys still have to go.
SLS is at the point where it's not big enough to support a Mars mission in itself and not cheap enough to be useful for much else, like resupplying a space station or launching planetary science missions. It will also fly about once a year, so it will never build up enough flight history where it could be considered reliable. If Congress didn't actually mandate its use on Europa Clipper I doubt NASA would have risked a flagship mission on a rocket's second or third flight (and possibly the first one that particular configuration).
No graft here... nope not one bit. NASA could have spent all those funds on planning for something the ground up. Instead there it is...
As part of rocket development, aerospace engineers extensively test booster components before they are assembled into a larger launch vehicle. To that end, NASA has built two big test stands at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama to test its large liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel tanks. These tanks are part of the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.
However, a new report from NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, raises serious questions about the cost of these test stands and the decision to build them in Alabama rather than in Mississippi, where NASA has an existing facility that already tests rocket engines. Additionally, the Mississippi-based Stennis Space Center is also much closer to the Louisiana factory where the SLS hydrogen and oxygen tanks are being assembled.
As part of the SLS program, NASA determined that it needed two test stands: one is for the larger hydrogen tank, which is about half the length of a football field, and the second is for the oxygen tank. The agency budgeted $40.5 million for the project but ended up spending $76 million, which is an increase of 88 percent. The stands were completed in November 2016.
The inspector found that most of the cost overruns were due to NASA's acceleration of the test-stand construction, with the space agency requesting the stands' completion by September 2015. This would have allowed the SLS rocket to make its maiden launch by the end of 2017. However, shortly after construction began, NASA delayed the maiden launch of the SLS rocket until 2018. And, recently, the agency delayed it again into 2019.
The initial launch delay came just a few months after construction began. By then, the SLS program, which is based at Marshall in northern Alabama, had already paid a $7.6 million premium to the contractor for a compressed schedule. Moreover, because plans weren't finalized before work began, NASA had to modify the construction plan six times during the course of building the test stands. This added an additional $12.1 million to the cost. Finally, despite the rush job requested, the test stands weren't completed until November 2016.
So SLS just cost NASA missions to Mars. NASA needs to get out of the Rocket Business and possibly suggest those that are in the field to head towards SpaceX and Blue Origin, even possibly Rocket Labs. Sad fact is that NASA hasn't built, designed, or even tested a ship systems since the 70's.
Now that they have moved back the goal posts they still have the one major flaw that was part of the Mars plan, no lander, and no hardware.
For the last five years or so, NASA has sold the public on a Journey to Mars, a grand voyage by which the agency will land humans on the red planet during the 2030s. With just budgetary increases for inflation, the agency said, it had the resources for humanity's next great step, to land crews safely on Mars, and to bring them home. The agency's new rocket, the Space Launch System, and spacecraft, Orion, were sold by NASA administrator Charles Bolden as the vehicles that would get the job done.
There were plenty of naysayers. For example, a National Research Council report cautioned that the agency had too much work, and too little funds, to accomplish these goals in the 2030s with the SLS rocket—and that sustaining a "Mars program" into the 2040s would be a tremendous challenge. NASA's remarkable response to this critical report was that it validated the Journey to Mars.
Now, finally, the agency appears to have bended toward reality. During a propulsion meeting of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics on Wednesday, NASA's chief of human spaceflight acknowledged that the agency doesn't really have the funding it needs to reach Mars.
"I can't put a date on humans on Mars, and the reason really is the other piece is, at the budget levels we described, this roughly 2 percent increase, we don’t have the surface systems available for Mars," said NASA's William H. Gerstenmaier, responding to a question about when NASA will send humans to the surface of Mars. "And that entry, descent and landing is a huge challenge for us for Mars."
This seems like a fairly common sense statement, but it's something that NASA officials have largely glossed over—at least in public—during the agency's promotion of a Journey to Mars. The reality is that the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft have cost a lot to build, and therefore NASA hasn't been able to begin designing vehicles to land on Mars or ascend from the surface.
Agency officials have also been loath to mention the possibility of NASA astronauts landing on the Moon, because George W. Bush had an initiative to return to the Moon that President Obama canceled. However, Gerstenmaier opened the door to this possibility Wednesday.
"If we find out there’s water on the Moon, and we want to do more extensive operations on the Moon to go explore that, we have the ability with Deep Space Gateway to support an extensive Moon surface program," he said. "If we want to stay focused more toward Mars we can keep that."
It has been a long time since NASA, especially its chief human spaceflight official, talked openly about an "extensive Moon surface program." However after six months of a new presidential administration, the agency realizes that its destination may well change. Therefore its leadership is keeping the decision about destinations open, be it the surface of the Moon or Mars.
The reality is that NASA may not be able to go either place unless something changes. The agency doesn't have the funding to build a large lunar outpost if it must rely on the Space Launch System—which will only fly about once a year, at a cost of more than $1 billion. Mars landings, clearly, would cost even more with the big, expendable rocket approach requiring five or more launches per mission.
Another, less costly option is having the freedom to rely much more heavily on partly or completely reusable launch and in-space transports systems being built by SpaceX, Blue Origin, and United Launch Alliance. Politically, so far any reliance on commercial companies for deep space exploration has been a non-starter in Congress. But that could change, as Vice President Mike Pence has been making some noise about increasing commercial partnerships at NASA. "The truth is that American business is on the cutting edge of space technology," he recently said.
NASA will soon set a new date for the maiden flight of its massive Space Launch System rocket, which will send the Orion spacecraft on a test flight around the Moon. Previously, this flight had been scheduled for 2018, but NASA officials acknowledged earlier this year that the launch date would slip into 2019.
Now, there is the possibility of further delays, although NASA isn't saying this publicly just yet. On Wednesday, at the Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, a key official said that a 2019 date is still on the table because Marshall Space Flight Center expects to deliver the rocket's core stage to the launch site in Florida by the end of 2018.
Noting a recent Agency Program Management Council meeting, during which launch dates are decided, Marshall director Todd May said, "2019 is where we think we can get that done." NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, should release an official launch date within the next few weeks, May added.
During a NASA safety meeting earlier this month, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel noted that there are three main items on the "critical path" before the SLS rocket can make its maiden launch. First, Marshall must deliver a fully tested core stage—the main liquid hydrogen and oxygen tanks and RS-25 rocket engines. The European Space Agency must also complete and then test the service module to power the Orion spacecraft in deep space. And much work remains to finalize and test software to manage launch systems at Kennedy Space Center.
"This is a critical point," said a member of the advisory board, engineer Donald McErlean. "The SLS continues to advance, and there are challenges that exist that no one would be surprised about in a program as advanced and complex as this. But the work to overcome those challenges is in progress."
For his part, May said this hard work will be the highlight for many engineers at NASA and its hundreds of contractors and subcontractors working to bring the big SLS rocket to the launch pad. "This is the fun part," May said Wednesday. "It's the hard part, but it's also the really fun part for the team."
Recently, the managing editor of the NASASpaceFlight.com, Chris Bergin, suggested that NASA managers are deciding between a "best case" launch date of December 2019 for the SLS rocket and a "risk informed" date in the second quarter of 2020. Bergin is a reliable source of inside information about NASA, and sources subsequently confirmed this information to Ars.
It is physically possible for NASA to make a launch date in 2019, but historically, things can (and often do) go wrong in the assembly and testing of major launch systems. While it is possible to beat the odds or resolve problems quickly, there is no guarantee that will happen between now and a 2019 launch date.
The issue now confronting NASA's acting administrator, Robert Lightfoot, is whether to set a more politically palatable launch date in 2019 knowing that it could easily slip into 2020. Moreover, should Lightfoot issue a public launch date of 2020, it would release the pressure now on NASA and its contractors, allowing managers to relax and guaranteeing an earlier date is not reached. Therefore, the smart money is on a launch date in 2019, with an eventual slip into 2020.
It was about a year ago that Boeing Chief Executive Dennis Muilenburg first began saying his company would beat SpaceX to Mars. "I'm convinced that the first person to step foot on Mars will arrive there riding on a Boeing rocket," he said during a Boeing-sponsored tech summit in Chicago in October 2016.
On Thursday, Muilenburg repeated that claim on CNBC. Moreover, he added this tidbit about the Space Launch System rocket—for which Boeing is the prime contractor of the core stage—"We’re going to take a first test flight in 2019 and we’re going to do a slingshot mission around the Moon."
Unlike last year, Muilenburg drew a response from SpaceX this time. The company's founder, Elon Musk, offered a pithy response on Twitter: "Do it."
The truth is that Boeing's rocket isn't going anywhere particularly fast. Although Muilenburg says it will launch in 2019, NASA has all but admitted that will not happen. The rocket's maiden launch has already slipped from late 2017 into "no earlier than" December 2019. However, NASA officials have said a 2019 launch is a "best case" scenario, and a slip to June 2020 is more likely.
The truth is that Boeing's rocket isn't going anywhere particularly fast. Although Muilenburg says it will launch in 2019, NASA has all but admitted that will not happen. The rocket's maiden launch has already slipped from late 2017 into "no earlier than" December 2019. However, NASA officials have said a 2019 launch is a "best case" scenario, and a slip to June 2020 is more likely.
Boeing also isn't going to land a rocket on Mars without near total funding from NASA, which has already paid more than $10 billion for development of the SLS and has no actual funding to implement a humans-to-Mars exploration plan. SpaceX will also need some government funding if it is to develop its "Big Falcon Rocket" to reach Mars, but Musk has laid out plans for commercial applications of his launch system that could offset some of its cost. (The SLS rocket has no known customers aside from NASA).
What is particularly puzzling to us is why Boeing and SpaceX are arguing about Mars. These two companies, who compete directly for NASA and other government contracts, are in a far more immediate and real race to reach the launch pad in the commercial crew competition. NASA has had to rely on Russia to get its astronauts to the International Space Station since the space shuttle's retirement in 2011. Both Boeing and SpaceX are building capsules that will launch crews from Florida.
The companies have both seen slips in their schedules for the first crewed flights. They have launch dates now set for 2018, but there is a general expectation that further delays are likely—both due to development problems and changing requirements from NASA. Regardless, the company that eventually breaks NASA's Russian dependence will win a public relations boon beyond compare for an aerospace company.
The RS-25 test team is ready for their first hot-fire test of the year in the A-1 test stand at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. Scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, the test will continue development work started with Development Engine 0528 (E0528) in last month’s hot-fire. The six-minute long firing will put the new, “3D printed” pogo accumulator assembly through a second test case and will acceptance test another engine controller for use on one of the early Space Launch System (SLS) launches.
The test team of personnel from NASA, RS-25 prime contractor Aerojet Rocketdyne, and Stennis facilities contractor Syncom Space Services (S3) will start another event-driven countdown on Tuesday morning, aiming for ignition in the afternoon. Rather than targeting a specific time of ignition, the test will start when all of the prerequisite steps prior to ignition are complete and the hardware and the people are ready. Ignition typically occurs in the mid-afternoon Central time.
In an email, Philip Benefield, Systems and Requirements Team Lead for the SLS Liquid Engines Office, told NASASpaceflight.com that the primary objectives for this test are to demonstrate the new “production restart” pogo accumulator in “high flow conditions” and to acceptance test or “green run” engine controller unit (ECU), FM10. “‘High flow conditions’ for the POGO is simply high oxidizer flow to the engine,” he explained. “We’re achieving high oxidizer flow by running the engine at high power level and at high mixture ratio.”
NASA will run out of existing RS-25 engines inherited from the Space Shuttle Program after four SLS launches and awarded a contract to Aerojet Rocketdyne to restart production of new engines for subsequent flights.
The first production restart hardware to go into hot-fire testing, the beachball-sized pogo accumulator assembly was manufactured using additive manufacturing (AM) processes (also known as “3D printing”) that are hoped will help with the cost reduction goals of the RS-25 “production restart” program. This assembly, a development test unit, was built at Aerojet Rocketdyne’s facility in Canoga Park, outside of Los Angeles, using an AM process called selective laser melting (SLM).
Although using new manufacturing methods, the pogo assembly retains the same form, fit, and function, which is to help to absorb and dampen the magnitude of oscillations that can start within the engine during mainstage operation. The accumulator is connected in the engine’s oxidizer system between the low and high pressure liquid oxygen (LOX) turbopumps.
Benefield said that Tuesday’s test is planned to have a duration of 365 seconds. During the firing, he also noted that the engine will be throttled primarily at the high and low end of the production restart range of 111 percent and 80 percent of rated power level (RPL), respectively.
E0528 will be throttled at 111 percent RPL for 177 seconds, and at 80 percent RPL for 148 seconds. The production restart engines will be certified to fly at 111 percent, with future plans to ground test up to 113 percent RPL.
The new pogo accumulator was first hot-fired with E0528 during the last test in the A-1 stand on December 13. That test was planned to last for 470 seconds, but the engine was shut down 70 seconds early due to a facility issue. “A LOX propellant transfer pump cut-off during the test,” Benefield explained. “This pump transfers LOX from a propellant storage barge to the A1 LOX run tank. As a result, an adequate level of LOX in the A1 LOX run tank could not be maintained leading to the early test cut-off.”
During a test, the engine in the A-1 test stand draws its propellants from “run tanks” built into the test stand, but the stand is also equipped with interconnected piping and other infrastructure like pumps that allow the run tanks to be backfilled with additional propellant from barge tankers that are docked there for tests.
Although the test ran short, all of the objectives of the test were completed prior to the early cutoff. What was missed in the last approximately minute of firing was the normal, “stair step” throttle down to the minimum power level before shutdown. “We did not complete the typical power level ramp-down to 80% RPL for the planned cut-off; instead the engine was cut-off at [approximately] 108% RPL,” Benefield noted.
Originally developed in the 1970s for the Space Shuttle Program when it was known as the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), RS-25 hot-fire testing began at Stennis in January 2015, to demonstrate and certify engine operation at the higher performance levels for SLS. SLS is both physically longer and at times will accelerate faster during launch than Shuttle did, requiring different starting and running inlet conditions for the engines through powered flight.
Four engines will fly in the SLS Core Stage, burning cryogenic liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX) fed to them from the stage’s propellant tanks. The engines will run at higher pressures and higher thrust than on Shuttle, and the propellant is also fed to them at colder temperatures.
Although largely the same engine design and hardware, the RS-25 “adaptation” engines integrated a new control system for use on SLS, which includes new engine controller hardware and software. Hardware for sixteen SSME flight units remained after the Shuttle program ended in 2011, and those will fly in the Core Stage on the first four SLS launches.
In addition to restarting supply chains, manufacturing, and production, a primary goal for the production restart program is a reduction in the cost to produce new units.
Aerojet Rocketdyne is working with NASA to make further changes to RS-25 production restart units when they begin flying on SLS launches. Although the changes are primarily aimed at cost reduction, the production restart design will also incorporate operational requirements changes such as increasing the nominal throttle setting from 109 to 111 percent RPL, which will benefit SLS performance.
In addition to the primary test objective for the production restart program, the green run of the FM10 engine controller will also help to continue acceptance testing of the remaining component hardware needed for the sixteen adaptation engines that Aerojet Rocketdyne has in its facility at Stennis.
Honeywell is continuing to build and assemble engine controller units and as they become available those flight ECUs will continue to be green run in the A-1 stand at Stennis. Ultimately, they will be installed on the existing, Shuttle-era adaptation engines to fly on the second, third and fourth planned SLS launches.
The next hot-fire test is planned for early February.
The successful launch of SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy rocket is a game-changer that could actually save NASA and the future of space exploration.
The much delayed, much maligned rocket is just what the space agency needs to escape from the governmental bureaucracy that has bound her to Low Earth Orbit for the past 45 years.
Unfortunately, the traditionalists at NASA — and their beltway bandit allies — don't share this view and have feared this moment since the day the Falcon Heavy program was announced seven years ago.
The question to be answered in Washington now is why would Congress continue to spend billions of taxpayer dollars a year on a government-made rocket that is unnecessary and obsolete now that the private sector has shown they can do it for a fraction of the cost?
If lawmakers continue on this path, it will siphon-off even more funds that NASA could otherwise use for science missions, transfer vehicles or landers that will further advance our understanding of the universe — and actually get us somewhere.
NASA has spent more than $15 billion to try and develop their own heavy lift rocket, the Space Launch System (SLS), with a first flight planned in roughly two years — assuming all goes according to plan.
Once operational, SLS will cost NASA over $1 billion per launch. The Falcon Heavy, developed at zero cost to the taxpayer, would charge NASA approximately $100M per launch. In other words, NASA could buy 10 Falcon Heavy launches for the coat of one SLS launch — and invest the remainder in truly revolutionary and meaningful missions that advance science and exploration.
It is understandable that government employees, contractors and their elected officials want to keep this expensive rocket development program going. A large share of NASA’s roughly $19billion budget has been spent on this constituency, and in turn is protected by them. We have come to accept this “tax” on the agency, but It is time for the nation to decide if we want a space program — or a jobs program.
NASA's marketing of how many elephants, locomotives and airplanes could be launched by various versions of SLS is a perfect example of the frivolity of developing, building and operating their own rocket. NASA advertises that it will be able to launch 12.5 elephants to LEO on Block I SLS, or 2.8 more elephants than the Falcon Heavy could launch. But if we are counting elephants — the planned Block II version of SLS could launch 30 elephants, while SpaceX's BFR could launch 34. Talk about significant.
The government should be focusing on their unique, longer-term goals and partnering with the private sector to help incentivize the success of this commercial U.S. enterprise.
SpaceX offered NASA the opportunity to get a free ride on this first launch. But the space agency viewed commercial development of this rocket as "competition" and refused their offer. Instead, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk put his own Tesla Roadster onboard, turning the event into a brilliant cross-marketing event.
Both SpaceX and NASA have missions to Mars as their goals, but only one can actually get there at a sustainable cost.
The wise investments made in commercial space by both the Bush and Obama administrations helped lead to SpaceX’s history making moment today. The plan worked: provide early government seed money into the private space market, let companies compete, lower costs and allow the government to develop new technologies that will expand our reach — and save taxpayer money.
I think this thread should be merged effectively with the NASA and the public sector thread. The falcon heavy launch seems like a momentous occasion enough to warrant it.
SLS is pure NASA and a separate project from the Private Industry with NASA.
Anyways, 1 billions dollars possibly blown for rebuilding and getting a launch tower that will only be used once. Also it is leaning, and may have to be replaced as a result. To put in perspective half a billion went into design, building, testing, and launching the Falcon heavy, another half a billion built the tower of London...
Construction on the structure began nine years ago when NASA needed a mobile launcher for a different rocket, the Ares I vehicle. According to NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, the agency spent $234 million to originally build the launch tower. However, after the government's Ares I and V rockets were canceled due to delays and cost overruns in 2010, NASA was left without much of a use for the large structure, which consists of a two-story base, a 355-foot-tall tower, and facility ground support systems.
In 2011, after Congress directed NASA to build a new large rocket, the SLS, the agency began studying its options to launch the booster. These trade studies found that modifying the existing mobile launcher would cost $54 million, modifying the Space Shuttle Mobile Launcher Platforms would cost $93 million, and constructing a new mobile launch platform would cost $122 million. Ultimately, the agency opted for the lowest-cost option—modifying the Ares mobile launcher—but unfortunately those preliminary cost estimates turned out to be wildly optimistic.
Instead of costing just $54 million, the US Government Accountability Office found that NASA spent $281.8 million revamping the mobile launcher from fiscal years 2012 to 2015, but still the work was not done. The recently released White House budget for fiscal year 2019 reveals that NASA anticipates spending an additional $396.2 million on the mobile launcher from 2015 through the maiden launch of the SLS, probably in 2020.
Therefore, from the tower's inception in 2009, NASA will have spent $912 million on the mobile launcher it may use for just a single launch of the SLS rocket. Moreover, the agency will have required eight years to modify a launch tower it built in two years.
Usa Today is essentially telling NASA to cancel the SLS:
Three great constants in life are death, taxes — and the costly rocket program that NASA always seems to have under development.
NASA's current rocket of the future is called the Space Launch System. It is a heavy-lift vehicle that replaced a similar program called Constellation proposed by the Bush administration.
Both are quite a bit like the National Launch System of the 1990s. And all have a distinct similarity to a rocket that once actually existed — the Saturn V used in the Apollo program.
In addition to these brawny rockets, the space agency has, at different times, toiled on various smaller, futuristic rocket planes such as the X-30 (also known as the National Aerospace Plane) and the X-33.
None of these prior programs, heavy lift or otherwise, got anywhere near liftoff. Their price tags were hefty, and their mission costs would have been even heftier.
Now, the same fate likely awaits the Space Launch System. It fails to answer the overarching, existential question: Why?
President Trump rejiggered the system's mission in December to focus on returning astronauts to the moon, something that would be both hugely expensive and highly repetitive.
But the story need not end there, with history repeating itself and the space program orbiting back to where it was before.
As government flails, private-sector space entrepreneurs have been notching some notable successes. Chief among them is Elon Musk, whose SpaceX company is known for a recent demo flight that put a Tesla Roadster in space. SpaceX has a family of rockets that could slash the cost of satellite launches and then, or so Musk says, go on to support a rigorous human space program.
It’s not a far-fetched idea. In fact, he makes a compelling case that NASA should get out of the rocket business entirely and let the private sector go to work.
If human space exploration is ever to get beyond occasional, expensive, symbolic and largely uninspiring flights, it won’t be from reinventing the wheel (or the heavy lift rocket). It will be because the costs of launches and space travel are brought down significantly.
That’s a big ask given the inherent dangers involved. But it might be possible by piggy-backing on the private sector — by identifying goals and then inviting companies to devise ways to attain them, and by putting astronauts on rockets developed to launch satellites.
To some degree, NASA is already doing this. Unable to develop a shuttle replacement before its retirement in 2011, the agency has been contracting out cargo flights to the International Space Station.
But NASA, the Trump administration and a good many in Congress are still keen on the Space Launch System, a big rocket that only bureaucracy and Big Government could love.
2294 days after Kennedy promised to go to the moon ... 3 men were orbiting the moon. This using 60s tech with NASA having as many successful space flight missions as i can count on one hand.
its time to stop funding NASA.. the organization has lost its way.
It isn't NASA, it's congress and bureaucrats giving contracts to obvious piss poor companies. Lockheed would have been a better choice for this than Boeing. They really do need to cancel that SLS and move on to SpaceX or Blue Origin until something better comes along. Boeing and Lockheed are known for sucking money out of NASA and other Pentagon projects.
SpaceX hasn't figured out the secret of obtaining goverment support, that their employees and their families can vote. Lockheed and Boeing figured this one out a long time ago, but Space X is still chasing that myth of the meritocracy. That isn't how goverment funding for these projects works.
That being said, NASA has always been an amazing goverment agency was committed to discovery and science. They were worth the nominal tax dollars it took to fund their efforts and helped make the ball point pen a thing. Worth it.
On October 11 2018 01:56 Plansix wrote: SpaceX hasn't figured out the secret of obtaining goverment support, that their employees and their families can vote. Lockheed and Boeing figured this one out a long time ago, but Space X is still chasing that myth of the meritocracy. That isn't how goverment funding for these projects works.
That being said, NASA has always been an amazing goverment agency was committed to discovery and science. They were worth the nominal tax dollars it took to fund their efforts and helped make the ball point pen a thing. Worth it.
I agree. But with SpaceX doing better than a lot thought possible and their scale is ramping up, NASA would be foolish to continue pumping money into Boeing or Lockheed for any future shuttles/ships/rockets. I think, once BFR is launched and shown to be a success, same with New Glen, NASA won't have a choice.
On October 11 2018 01:56 Plansix wrote: SpaceX hasn't figured out the secret of obtaining goverment support, that their employees and their families can vote. Lockheed and Boeing figured this one out a long time ago, but Space X is still chasing that myth of the meritocracy. That isn't how goverment funding for these projects works.
That being said, NASA has always been an amazing goverment agency was committed to discovery and science. They were worth the nominal tax dollars it took to fund their efforts and helped make the ball point pen a thing. Worth it.
I agree. But with SpaceX doing better than a lot thought possible and their scale is ramping up, NASA would be foolish to continue pumping money into Boeing or Lockheed for any future shuttles/ships/rockets. I think, once BFR is launched and shown to be a success, same with New Glen, NASA won't have a choice.
NASA doesn't control its budget, congress does. Pulling those contracts comes with angry senators and house reps. I don't know how many NASA defenders there are in congress right now.
On October 11 2018 01:56 Plansix wrote: SpaceX hasn't figured out the secret of obtaining goverment support, that their employees and their families can vote. Lockheed and Boeing figured this one out a long time ago, but Space X is still chasing that myth of the meritocracy. That isn't how goverment funding for these projects works.
That being said, NASA has always been an amazing goverment agency was committed to discovery and science. They were worth the nominal tax dollars it took to fund their efforts and helped make the ball point pen a thing. Worth it.
I agree. But with SpaceX doing better than a lot thought possible and their scale is ramping up, NASA would be foolish to continue pumping money into Boeing or Lockheed for any future shuttles/ships/rockets. I think, once BFR is launched and shown to be a success, same with New Glen, NASA won't have a choice.
NASA doesn't control its budget, congress does. Pulling those contracts comes with angry senators and house reps. I don't know how many NASA defenders there are in congress right now.
I know all of that. SpaceX won't cozy up to congressional members because at the moment, they don't need them. But NASA does. All I'm saying is that, NASA, in the next administration, push for the contracts to be pulled. They have the support of the people for the most part, so if they campaign the right way, they could maybe do it. I just don't like seeing NASA flailing about, wasting billions on companies that have a long history of being late and going over budget. They do their primary mission quite beautifully, but this is terrible.
The report found that Boeing's development of "command and control" hardware and software needed to conduct this test is already 18 months behind a schedule established in 2016. This means the Stennis facility won't be ready to accommodate a green run test until at least May 2019, with further delays possible.
This is critical, because often the most serious engineering problems are uncovered during the phase when key rocket components are integrated and tested. The delay in green-run testing means that any problems that crop up during that phase of development will only push the maiden launch of the SLS further into the future.
This pretty much confirms months long reports of NASA and Boeing running in major software problems and even standard safety tests failing that should otherwise not be failing. So either they have had to start from scratch or still trying to plug holes in a already shoddy design.
The report found that Boeing's development of "command and control" hardware and software needed to conduct this test is already 18 months behind a schedule established in 2016. This means the Stennis facility won't be ready to accommodate a green run test until at least May 2019, with further delays possible.
This is critical, because often the most serious engineering problems are uncovered during the phase when key rocket components are integrated and tested. The delay in green-run testing means that any problems that crop up during that phase of development will only push the maiden launch of the SLS further into the future.
This essentially means Boeing has done 3 months of work in a 21 month period. If this were any other government project the company would contract would have been declared null and void as well as Boeing having to eat up the costs on their own. But the SLS is largely just a pork project and political maneuver for jobs in home districts.
Another thrust of the report is that NASA has improperly awarded tens of millions of dollars to Boeing for performance fees the company has not earned. "We question nearly $64 million in award fees provided to Boeing since 2012 for the 'very good' and 'excellent' performance ratings it received while the SLS Program was experiencing substantial cost increases, technical issues, and schedule delays," the report states.
In his response to the new report, NASA's chief of human spaceflight, Bill Gerstenmaier, essentially shrugs off the criticism by saying building big rockets is hard work.
"The SLS is the largest launch system in the history of space flight," Gerstenmaier's response states. "The design, development, manufacturing, test, and operations of the system are highly complex and represent a national investment in a long-term commitment to deep space exploration."
This may be true. But it seems an increasingly difficult sell after SpaceX developed the not-quite-as-large-or-complex Falcon Heavy rocket for $500 million. It is not clear what will happen next. In the past, Congress has largely ignored criticism of the SLS rocket, even from official sources. After all, the vehicle has 1,100 contractors in 43 states, covering a lot of legislative districts.
However, there are a few critics close to the White House who have been whispering concerns and criticisms about the big, expensive rocket to Vice President Mike Pence, who leads the National Space Council. To be clear, the vice president has been publicly supportive of the SLS rocket to date. But this report will at the very least add fuel to the fire of the criticisms he is hearing.
Now just imagine if Blue Origin manages to make it's maiden flight before the SLS.
It's to little too late. Congress has turned the rocket project into a slush fund, and jobs programs.
Annually, NASA spends nearly $4 billion on development of its "exploration" hardware, including the Space Launch System rocket, Orion spacecraft, the launch pad, and related facilities. This is a large amount of money, comprising nearly half of the space agency's expenditure on human spaceflight activities. Development has been ongoing since 2011, and NASA hopes to finally fly the vehicles together in 2020.
The exploration program spreads those funds around to four principal contractors who once played a key role in the space shuttle program and now supports the SLS rocket and Orion. Senior representatives of all four of these companies, Aerojet Rocketdyne, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman, appeared last week for a panel discussion at the American Astronautical Society's Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.
For the most part, the presentations went as usual for these kinds of events—corporate vice presidents talking about the progress they were making on this or that component of the rocket and spacecraft. Although the Space Launch System rocket is going to launch three years later than originally planned, and its program is over budget and was recently admitted by NASA's own inspector to be poorly managed, you would not have known it from these presentations.
However, one panelist did offer a warning of sorts to his colleagues. Former astronaut and Vice President and General Manager of Propulsion for Northrop Grumman Charlie Precourt spoke about his company's contributions to the rocket (Northrop Grumman recently acquired Orbital ATK). They are building the large, solid rocket boosters that will provide a kick off the launch pad. Yet Precourt prefaced his update with a message about affordability—as the exploration program moves from development into operations with the first flight of SLS and Orion in 2020 or so, costs must come down, he said.
"We have to execute, but we also have to be planning for the future in terms of survivability, sustainability, and affordability," Precourt said. "I used all three of those words intentionally about this program. We’ve got to make sure we’ve got our mindset on affordability, and I don’t think it’s too early for all of us on this panel, as well as our counterparts at NASA, to start thinking about that."
Precourt noted that there are plenty of critics of the SLS rocket program outside of the major contractors involved in its development. (These critics have cited cost—NASA has already spent $12 billion to develop the rocket, which remains two years from flight at least—in addition to a low flight rate and lost opportunity costs). The rocket has survived substantial delays and cost overruns because it has strong support in Congress. The vehicle has 1,100 contractors in 43 states, covering a lot of legislative districts.
"We here inside the program tend not to think about the need to advocate," Precourt said. "There are a lot of people with other ideas about how we should do this mission, so I think it’s incumbent on us. It’s not too early to be thinking about the transition from development to production. And that means a totally different management philosophy and cost structure for all of us."
Precourt said contractors should consider a future in which NASA's present multibillion expenditures on rocket development costs need to be cut in half in order for the SLS vehicle to have a robust future.
"All of us need to be thinking about [how] our annual budget for this will not be what it is in development," he said. "That’s a very serious problem that we have to look forward to, and to try to rectify, so that we are sustainable."
If the other speakers had thoughts about Precourt's comments, they did not share them during the ensuing discussion.
It is truly a shame. Would be amazing if some tech savvy people got elected and a complete overhaul of NASA budget, who they contract with, and how to force these companies to pay back the money they've essentially stolen, back to NASA. But we just have SpaceX for now. And Soon Blue Origin for our space dreams.
It doesn't matter who gets elected and what happens to NASA. This is a congress problem. This happens basically with any piece of legislation. It is just that with NASA, it becomes really visible. Basically you will only get members of congress to back something if you offer their state a piece of the cake. This is how NASA has always operated and makes NASA extremely inefficient and bureaucratic. But they are forced to by congress and there is no political mechanism to prevent this.
This form of corruption is basically baked into the US constitution. As is Gerrymandering. But, in a sense you could say things right now operate more efficiently than if every state was an independent country with an independent military, an independent science institutions, independent space agency, etc. And this is because the US isn't a truly unified country, but a bunch of united states. And I can't see US politicians ever get rid of for example the electoral college.
Business Insider has an article quoting a NASA executive saying NASA will scrap SLS if SpaceX and Blue Origin come through with their heavy lift rockets.
Wouldn't be surprised but the amount of political pork involved in the project will be untenable from this point until it's staring at everyone for all to see. Hell at this point it might as well be a Cargo ship.
Keep in mind they could complete everything and have the SLS sitting on the launch pad but it will be unmanned as they still don't have a lander, nor is one even designed as of yet.
Amazon giant Jeff Bezos invested a “mere” $2.5 billion into the two-stage, 95-meter tall New Glenn, which has a fully reusable first stage, designed for 25 uses. With its 45-metric-ton payload capability to LEO, the rocket doesn’t quite make the cut as a super heavy launch lift vehicle, but this hasn’t stopped the the US Air Force from awarding Blue Origin $500 million for New Glenn’s development in October. Its debut launch is slated for late 2020.
The even-more-ambitious, 100-percent-reusable Big Falcon Rocket (BFR) created by Elon Musk’s SpaceX is also a two-stage rocket, with the entire system (spacecraft and booster) standing at 348 feet (106 meters). With 40 cabins to carry 100 passengers and a 150 ton payload to LEO, BFR’s design steadily plods toward Musk’s dream of establishing a Martian settlement. Although Musk’s roadster has already headed toward Mars, SpaceX plans to start launching suborbital “hops” in late 2019, followed by launching cargo ships to the red planet in 2022, priming the company for crewed missions by 2024. NASA doesn’t anticipate sending crewed missions to Mars until the 2030s.
Yeah I don't see SLS lasting for much longer if SX and BO start making flights and hit their targets. If Musk and SX get to Mars with people before NASA, then they have no reason to use SLS imo. Use "Starship" and put that money into sending a ton of research to Mars with people. Looking forward to the Starlink internet sats though. Although I heard that also got delayed.
And now it seems that, finally, the government side of things is getting tired of the SLS. But the bigger question is the debate how much weight an Alabama job's program can lobby.
Two sources familiar with the thinking of Vice President Mike Pence—who leads US space policy—have said he is frustrated with the slow pace of the nation's efforts to send humans to the Moon. In particular, he is growing tired of delays with NASA's Space Launch System rocket, which was originally due to launch in 2017 and is now likely delayed until 2021 at the earliest.
Notably, President Donald Trump's budget request calls for a 17 percent reduction in the budget for NASA's Space Launch System rocket, once viewed as the backbone of the space agency's efforts to explore deep space. The president's budget request chips away at the supremacy of the SLS booster in three important ways.
First of all, with the budget cut, the president's proposal "defers" funding for the Exploration Upper Stage. That's the more powerful second stage that would allow a future version of the SLS rocket to lift both the Orion capsule and large chunks of payload to lunar orbit.
"The Budget proposes reforms to the SLS program to prevent the program’s significant cost and schedule challenges from further diverting resources from other exploration activities," the president's budget overview states. This is a reflection of a desire to complete the initial, oft-delayed "Block 1" version of the SLS as expeditiously as possible. Future upgrades will have to wait (or may never come at all).
The budget also opens the door to commercial launches of cargo to lunar orbit, including comments of its proposed Gateway station there. "Lunar Gateway elements would be launched on competitively procured vehicles, complementing crew transport flights on the SLS and Orion," the document states.
This is a significant change from the previous plans, which called for "co-manifesting" the Orion spacecraft alongside modules of the Gateway onto a single SLS rocket, with its enhanced upper stage. The Block 1 version of the SLS is not powerful enough for such co-manifested missions.
Finally, the budget says that a robotic probe to Europa, due to launch in the 2020s, will not launch on the SLS booster. Instead, it will launch on a private rocket. (As Ars previously reported, this almost certainly would be SpaceX's Falcon Heavy). "By launching that mission on a commercial launch vehicle, NASA would save over $700 million, allowing multiple new activities to be funded across the Agency," the budget document states.
With this proposal, therefore, NASA is taking away a key upgrade to the Space Launch System's upper stage, proposing to launch Gateway on commercial rockets, and removing a high-profile mission from the launch manifest—the Europa Clipper. This leaves just one real task for SLS, which no commercial rocket can presently perform: the direct delivery of a crewed Orion capsule to a high lunar orbit.
Given that the idea behind SLS to be already proven tech this appearing to be one giant clusterfuck. Alongside Boeing needing more time and funding just for engineering studies, not to mention the date for static tests can't be agreed on. Also it will now take SLS longer than Apollo, and the tech was built from scratch, to deliver a rocket capable of launch. The companies have incentive to deliver on anything.
Just look at the staff, and some of their leaders. Less than pleased.
On Monday, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine held a town hall for agency employees to begin talking about how they can return humans to the Moon by 2024. This was the goal set down by Vice President Mike Pence last week during a space policy speech in Huntsville, Alabama.
The discussion was short on details until Bridenstine was asked why an idea to use private rockets to launch the Orion spacecraft on an uncrewed test flight around the Moon was unworkable. The administrator replied that the agency had looked at a variety of options using United Launch Alliance's Delta IV Heavy rocket, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket, or (perhaps most intriguingly) a combination of the two.
"By the way, I was for it, because the visuals would be beautiful," Bridenstine said. Unfortunately, none of these options really worked for a 2020 mission due to a variety of reasons. These included the availability of Delta IV Heavy rockets, launchpad issues, and Orion's lack of capability to dock autonomously with a rocket's upper stage in orbit.
However, Bridenstine then laid out one scenario that has huge implications, not for a 2020 launch, but one later on. Until now, it was thought that only NASA's Space Launch System could directly inject the Orion spacecraft into a lunar orbit, which made it the preferred option for getting astronauts to the Moon for any potential landing by 2024. However, Bridenstine said there was another option: a Falcon Heavy rocket with an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage built by United Launch Alliance. "Talk about strange bedfellows," he mused about the two rocket rivals.
This plan has the ability to put humans on the Moon by 2024, Bridenstine said. He then emphasized—twice—that NASA's chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, has yet to bless this approach due to a number of technical details. His reservations include the challenge of integrating the Falcon Heavy rocket in a horizontal position and then loading Orion with fuel in a vertical configuration on the launchpad. The Falcon Heavy would also require a larger payload fairing than it normally flies with. This would place uncertain stress on the rocket's side-mounted boosters.
"It would require time [and] cost, and there is risk involved," Bridenstine said. "But guess what—if we're going to land boots on the Moon in 2024, we have time, and we have the ability to accept some risk and make some modifications. All of that is on the table. There is nothing sacred here that is off the table. And that is a potential capability that could help us land boots on the Moon in 2024."
With this comment, Bridenstine broke a political taboo. For the first time, really, a senior NASA official had opened the door to NASA flying its first crewed missions to the Moon on a Falcon Heavy rocket built by SpaceX. An official with the company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
There are, of course, considerable caveats to consider here. For one, Bridenstine said the SLS rocket, with its larger throw capacity, is still the agency's preferred option. But that rocket's first launch has been delayed until at least late 2020, and there is no guarantee it will be ready to fly by then.
There is also the matter of Gerstenmaier, who was seated in the front row of Monday's town hall. On multiple occasions, Bridenstine referred to the influential US spaceflight leader along the lines of, "Gerst is going to be so mad at me for saying all of this." Sources have told Ars that Gerstenmaier has, in fact, not yet bought into any of this.
Finally, there is politics. It is not clear whether Democrats would support a policy like this put forth by the Trump administration, although in the past they have been somewhat more favorable to private space companies such as SpaceX. Certainly there will be opposition from key Republican senators, such as Alabama's Richard Shelby, who will oppose any effort to sideline the SLS rocket.
For all of that, however, Bridenstine reiterated Pence's line that the "ends" of reaching the Moon matter far more than the "means." And he encouraged the NASA workforce to embrace the possibility of change that would accelerate what has, until now, been a rather slow pace in human spaceflight. "This is a big charge, and it comes straight from the top," Bridenstine said. "It's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity."
So is going to costs almost $120 million just to store the Clipper because the SLS won't be ready by the time it is completed.
Also the political fallout has started. It is becoming quite clear the only thing keeping the SLS alive is Senator Shelby. It is also seems his influence was what made sure the economic awards went to Alabama instead of Texas which pissed off a lot of politicians in Texas, natioanlly as well as locally.
In today's SLS news, besides being behind schedule and no sign of a test flight in sight yet, no lander has yet to be even designed let alone a contractor picked. The only thing keeping this thing alive is pure Pork favored senators, which is already at $20 billion, from Alabama mostly.
The solution? Order 10 more by 2028. Now, the current Administration, from continuing to raid funds from the commercial programs to fund this thing, but also now Pell Grants etc are being discussed.
$2 Billion. Dollars. Per launch, and the rocket and other items on the agenda aren't even finished yet. Good lord, that is insane. After earlier rejecting Blue Origin's offer. This is pure pork and lobbying effort to keep certain industries in certain states for political gains and jobs.
On Halloween, NASA posted a document that provides some perspective on the agency's long-term plans for the Space Launch System rocket. This is the agency's titanic booster that has been under development since 2010, has an annual budget of more than $2 billion, and will not fly before at least 2021. The new document, known as a Justification for Other Than Full and Open Competition, explains why NASA rejected a lower-cost version of an upper stage for its rocket.
Early on, the space agency opted to build the large SLS rocket in phases. The initial version, Block 1, would have a placeholder upper stage. As a result, this initial variant of the rocket would be somewhat limited in its capabilities and only marginally more powerful than private rockets—most notably SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin's New Glenn boosters—developed without the deep pockets of US taxpayers.
The much more capable Block 1b of the SLS rocket will stand apart from these private rockets. With its more powerful second stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, it will more than double the lift capacity of these private rockets. Additionally, it will have the capability to launch both large amounts of cargo and the crewed Orion spacecraft at the same time.
At the outset of the program, NASA chose Boeing to build both the core stage of the SLS rocket, as well as the Exploration Upper Stage. In recent years, Congress has appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars for the agency and Boeing to design this new upper stage to fit on top of the SLS rocket. The agency has yet to move into development of the upper stage, however.
There are several reasons for this. NASA wants Boeing to finish the SLS rocket's core stage first, as it is already four years late. Moreover, because of Boeing's performance on the core stage and projected costs of the Exploration Upper Stage, the agency was curious if there were other aerospace companies interested in building a powerful upper stage for the SLS rocket.
Two years ago this frustration, in part, led NASA to issue a request for industry to provide a "low-cost replacement" for the RL-10 rocket engine that powered the Exploration Upper Stage, as well as perhaps an entirely new stage itself. An agency spokesperson said at the time the request sought to "open up the field of possible responses" and reduce costs of the SLS rocket's proposed upper stage.
Since that time, the issue of the Exploration Upper Stage has largely simmered behind the scenes. The new document released on Halloween, however, provides some clarity for what happened. And instead of opening upper stage bidding into a formal bidding process, NASA decided to stick with Boeing's version of the Exploration Upper Stage. Because this was a non-competitive process, NASA had to justify it with the new document.
After the Senate Appropriations Committee released its fiscal year 2020 budget bill in September, the White House Office of Management and Budget responded with a letter to share some "additional views" on the process. This letter (see a copy), dated October 23 and signed by acting director of the White House budget office Russell Vought, provides some insight into NASA's large Space Launch System rocket.
Congress has mandated that NASA use the more costly SLS booster to launch the ambitious Europa Clipper mission to Jupiter in the early 2020s, while the White House prefers the agency to fly on a much-less-expensive commercial rocket. In a section discussing the Clipper mission, Vought's letter includes a cost estimate to build and fly a single SLS rocket in a given year—more than $2 billion—which NASA has not previously specified.
"The Europa mission could be launched by a commercial rocket," Vought wrote to the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Alabama Republican Richard Shelby. "At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings. The Administration urges the Congress to provide NASA the flexibility called for by the NASA Inspector General."
Independent estimates have pegged the SLS cost this high, but NASA has never admitted it. A $2 billion cost to launch one SLS rocket a year raises significant questions about the sustainability of such an exploration program—the government killed the similarly sized Saturn V rocket in the early 1970s because of similarly unsustainable costs.
The letter also references a report published by NASA's Inspector General Paul Martin last May, which recommended that NASA scientists and engineers, rather than Congress, choose the best rocket for their science mission to Jupiter's Moon Europa. This report, however, placed a much lower cost estimate on the SLS rocket. It stated that, "NASA officials estimate the third SLS Block 1 launch vehicle’s marginal cost will be at least $876 million."
This discrepancy can likely be explained by the difference between marginal costs and marginal plus fixed costs. Martin's estimate is for "marginal" cost alone, meaning how much it would cost NASA to build an additional rocket in a given year. This likely does not apply to the Europa Clipper mission, however, as NASA would like to launch the Clipper spacecraft in 2023 or 2024, a time when the SLS rocket's core stage contractor, Boeing, will probably not be capable of building more than one booster a year.
The real cost for an SLS rocket should therefore include fixed costs—such factory space at NASA's Michoud Assembly in Louisiana, the workforce, and all of the other costs beyond a rocket's metal and other physical components. In other words, if you are only capable of building and flying one rocket a year, the total price must include fixed and marginal costs, which brings the SLS cost to "over $2 billion."
At an estimated cost of over $2 billion per launch for the SLS once development is complete, the use of a commercial launch vehicle would provide over $1.5 billion in cost savings.
Though with the assumption of 1 rocket a year, even with more rockets there would be massive savings.
I agree it does not seem a good project to run. Move the funding from this to space observatories or experiments and you get value from the money at least. Even the idea of sending a micro rocket to the next star system seems a more worthwhile thing to look into.
Huge bump. But apparently a planning document, not sure at stage this was discussed, has been leaked to Eric Berger. If true then this seems to mean that Boeing, which has not had a good run in the space department recently, pulled it's trump card. Lobbyists.
Though Jim Bridenstine has denied such things.
NASA is close to finalizing a plan to land humans on the Moon in 2024 and is expected to publicly discuss it next month. While the space agency has not released its revised strategy publicly, a recently updated "mission manifest" for the Space Launch System rocket may provide some clues about the new Artemis Program.
According to a planning document circulated at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center this week, titled "Moon 2024 Mission Manifest," the space agency has set target launch dates for its first 10 Artemis Moon missions. In doing so, the agency has shaken up the order of launches and emphasized the use of NASA's Space Launch System in the lunar return.
The document confirms an earlier report that the first Artemis mission to test SLS rocket will take place no earlier than April 2021. It also adds an additional Artemis mission in the run-up to the first human landing at the South Pole in late 2024:
April 2021: Artemis I, Uncrewed test flight of Orion on Block 1 of SLS
January 2023: Artemis II, Crewed flight of Orion around Moon on Block 1 of SLS
August 2024: Artemis III, Integrated lunar lander launched to Moon on Block 1B of SLS
October 2024: Artemis IV, Crewed flight of Orion for human Moon landing on Block 1 of SLS
September 2025: Science mission, Launch of Europa Clipper on Block 1 of SLS
June 2026: Artemis V, Crewed flight of Orion to Moon on Block 1B of SLS
June 2027: Science mission, Launch of Europa Lander on Block 1B of SLS
August 2028: Artemis VI, Crewed flight of Orion to Moon on Block 1B of SLS
February 2029: Artemis VII, Cargo mission to Moon on Block 2 of SLS
August 2029: Artemis VIII, Crewed mission of Orion on Block 2 of SLS
February 2030: Artemis IX, Cargo mission on Block 2 of SLS
August 2030: Artemis X, Crew mission on Block 2 of SLS
NASA said Thursday evening this mission manifest does not accurately reflect its Artemis plans.
"The proposed timeline in this article has many inaccuracies," said Matthew Rydin, press secretary for NASA. "We are currently in a blackout period because multiple companies have proposed human lunar lander solutions. These selections will be made in the coming weeks. However, the plan represented in this article is not the NASA plan."
But based upon the document obtained by Ars and recent internal briefings by NASA Associate Administrator Doug Loverro, it does seem increasingly clear that NASA is moving away from its original Artemis plan, which involved the use of multiple rockets and assembly of a Human Landing System in orbit around the Moon.
Loverro shakes things up
After arriving at NASA in late 2019 as the agency's new chief of human spaceflight, Loverro kicked off an assessment of the Artemis Program. As constituted at the time, NASA's plan called for using a mix of commercial rockets to pre-position components of a human lander near the Moon at the "Lunar Gateway." Four astronauts would then launch on the SLS rocket to rendezvous at the Gateway; two would descend to the surface of the Moon in the lander, and two would remain in orbit.
For this assessment, about 60 people at the agency and from industry sought to determine the status of the program as it was currently structured. After the analysis, Loverro told staffers at NASA he had "concerns" about whether the existing plan would work. In particular, during internal briefings, Loverro expressed doubts about the remote assembly of elements of the lunar lander at the Gateway. He also wanted NASA engineers to make sure the Orion spacecraft, with crew on board, could dock to the lander without the Gateway.
The potential revision of this plan, which may entail the launch of an entire lunar lander on an upgraded version of the SLS rocket, is notable for several reasons. Perhaps most significantly, it would place primary responsibility for NASA's Moon program on the shoulders of Boeing. That company is building the core stage of the SLS rocket, as well as an upgraded upper stage—the Exploration Upper Stage—that would now be required for use by August 2024 on the Block 1B version of the SLS. In fact, it would be required to accelerate development of the beefier SLS rocket.
"Due to the increases in number of flights and configurations, and the need for (Block 1B) one year earlier, much of the analysis work must be performed in parallel, rather than phased in series," the Marshall Space Flight Center document notes. Marshall, located in northern Alabama, oversees development of the SLS rocket.
Boeing on the critical path
In addition to this, such a plan would necessitate building an extra SLS core stage before fall 2024–four instead of three. This appears to be a change of heart by NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine, who until now has said Boeing will have its hands full completing three core stages by that time.
A reliance on Boeing would come as the contractor is already struggling with both the SLS rocket and its Starliner spacecraft for NASA. Largely due to issues with the core stage, the SLS rocket will be delayed at least four years beyond its original launch date of December 2016, with billions of dollars in overruns. NASA's inspector general has characterized Boeing's execution on the SLS program as "poor." Moreover, Boeing's Starliner crew spacecraft had several significant software issues during its first flight in December 2019 and was unable to fly up to the International Space Station.
The new plan, if implemented, would substantially cut commercially developed rockets—such as SpaceX's Falcon Heavy and Blue Origin's New Glenn—back from the Artemis program. Previously, NASA had said it would launch elements of its Human Landing System on commercial rockets, because such vehicles cost much less than the estimated $2 billion rate per launch of the SLS vehicle. Now, perhaps, private rockets may be called upon to launch smaller pieces such as a lunar rover to the Moon's surface.
Lunar lander
The Marshall document does not specify the components of the Human Landing System that will be launched on the SLS rocket. NASA is still in a blackout period as it seeks to award preliminary contracts for the ascent, descent, and transfer modules of its Human Landing System. Those awards are likely to come some time in mid-March.
There are four known bidders for lander development contracts: teams led by Boeing, Blue Origin, and Dynetics, as well as a plan from SpaceX. Of those, only Boeing has proposed building a fully integrated lander that would be launched on the Block 1B version of its SLS rocket. However, other bidders would presumably be allowed to propose integrated landers to be launched on the SLS booster.
The SLS launch manifest only tells part of the story of the Artemis Program. It does not specify the role a Lunar Gateway would play, although at the very least it does appear that the Gateway is pushed off into the future after a Moon landing. In that sense, this plan appears to be similar to that proposed by the US House of Representatives in its H.R. 5666 NASA authorization legislation.
Still don't see why the project should be finished. Need a useful use case to finish up the end. Seems more and more like a sunken cost fallacy. Though at some point finishing it up becomes worthwhile (probably why they keep pushing decisions away) since so little remains and the limited usability can be achieved cheaper by finishing it than taking a different solution to do it.
Bump. Since the last update the cost has gone over $20 billion, and estimates the costs will continue to rise. Even more than 30% possibly; all built on existing tech. Also the SLS has been delayed again.
Charlie Bolden, a four-time astronaut, served as NASA administrator from mid-2009 through early 2017. During that time, he oversaw the creation and initial development of the agency's large Space Launch System rocket.
Although some NASA officials such as then-Deputy Director Lori Garver were wary of the rocket's costs—about $20 billion has now been poured into development of a launch vehicle based on existing technology—Bolden remained a defender of the large rocket, calling it a lynchpin of the agency's plans to send humans beyond low-Earth orbit, perhaps to the Moon or Mars. He also dismissed the efforts of commercial space companies like SpaceX to build comparable technology.
When I sat down with Bolden for an interview in 2014 at Johnson Space Center, I asked why NASA was investing so much in the SLS rocket when SpaceX was using its own funds to develop the lower-cost Falcon Heavy rocket. His response at the time: “Let’s be very honest. We don’t have a commercially available heavy-lift vehicle. The Falcon 9 Heavy may some day come about. It’s on the drawing board right now. SLS is real.”
Two years later, in 2016, Bolden said he still did not believe commercial companies were up to the task. "If you talk about launch vehicles, we believe our responsibility to the nation is to take care of things that normal people cannot do, or don’t want to do, like large launch vehicles," Bolden said. "I’m not a big fan of commercial investment in large launch vehicles just yet."
Since that time, a lot has changed. In February 2018, SpaceX launched the Falcon Heavy rocket for the first time. It has since flown successfully two more times, and it will play a role in NASA's future exploration plans. Meanwhile, the SLS rocket, originally due to launch in 2017, is now delayed until at least the end of 2021.
As a result of this, Bolden appears to have changed his mind. In an interview with Politico published Friday morning in the publication's Space newsletter, Bolden was asked what might happen during the next four years.
“SLS will go away," he said. "It could go away during a Biden administration or a next Trump administration… because at some point commercial entities are going to catch up. They are really going to build a heavy lift launch vehicle sort of like SLS that they will be able to fly for a much cheaper price than NASA can do SLS. That’s just the way it works.”
Bolden remains a popular and influential voice in the space community, but he no longer has a direct say in US space policy. Perhaps because he no longer has to answer to Congress for NASA budgets, he is also free to speak his mind. In any case, his comments reflect the general sentiment in the space community—at least outside of the traditional contractors like Boeing and Northrop Grumman who directly benefit from SLS development—that the SLS rocket will eventually go away.
View of SLS outside the bubble
The Falcon Heavy is not as capable as the SLS rocket, but its success has clearly demonstrated that private companies can build large, powerful rockets. Moreover, it's not just SpaceX, but also Blue Origin with its New Glenn booster, that seeks to build heavy lift rockets with private money. And although they are rivals, SpaceX's Elon Musk and Blue Origin's Jeff Bezos both agree that rockets need to be capable of reuse to be viable. The SLS will cost about $2 billion to launch and then fall into the ocean.
If you're wondering what commercial space proponents really think about the SLS rocket due to its cost and expendability, it's this, which comes from a senior official at a new space company:
"If Santa Claus arrived, and said, 'I have good news. It now works and you can launch tomorrow. Everything's done. You're going to have a launch tomorrow.' ... It still isn't getting us to the Moon. Even if they achieve everything they aim for, it still does not get people to the Moon. It certainly does not get a base on the Moon and absolutely doesn't get humans to Mars."
When Congress conceived of the Space Launch System rocket in 2010 and directed NASA to build it, they were making two bets. First, they bet the new space companies such as SpaceX would fail. This was a reasonable bet back then, as SpaceX had lost most of the rockets it had tried to launch into space. Second, they bet that traditional companies like Boeing would be better at building big rockets.
The congressional lawmakers who created SLS—it began with Florida Senator Bill Nelson and Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and they were soon joined by Alabama Senator Richard Shelby—lost both of those bets. So now, NASA is building a large, expendable rocket that has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars. Congress remains as committed as ever, both in budgets and public statements of support. However, the more that new rockets fly, the more difficult this support will be to maintain.
Ironically, NASA and the SLS prime contractor Boeing are no longer competing with the Falcon Heavy. SpaceX beat them two and a half years ago. Rather, NASA is competing with SpaceX's next rocket, the Super Heavy booster that will loft Starship into orbit. SpaceX has not even built a single segment of its Super Heavy rocket—which is larger than SLS, more powerful, vastly cheaper, and reusable—but it's possible that the vehicle makes an orbital launch before the decade-old SLS in 2021.
A million lines of code for software... after 4 days of testing and found only one "benign" bug. I'm not saying they are lying, but somebody is bending the truth a bit.
NASA’s newest moon rocket is powered not only by four RS-25 engines that, combined, unleash 2 million pounds of thrust, but by two solid fuel side boosters that burn six tons of propellant a second at such enormous temperatures that during a recent test fire in the Utah desert, the flames turned sand to glass.
When it launches, NASA’s Space Launch System rocket, a towering 322-foot behemoth — taller than the Statue of Liberty — would be the most powerful rocket ever flown, eclipsing both the Saturn V that flew astronauts to the moon and SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy, which has launched commercial and national security satellites as well as founder Elon Musk’s Tesla Roadster on a trip to Mars.
But as NASA moves toward the SLS’s first flight, putting the Orion spacecraft in orbit around the moon, it’s not the rocket’s engines that concern officials but the software that will control everything the rocket does, from setting its trajectory to opening individual valves to open and close.
Computing power has become as critical to rockets as the brute force that lifts them out of Earth’s atmosphere, especially rockets like the SLS, which is really an amalgamation of parts built by a variety of manufacturers: Boeing builds the rocket’s “core stage,” the main part of the vehicle. Lockheed Martin builds the Orion spacecraft. Aerojet Rocketdyne and Northrop Grumman are responsible for the RS-25 engines and the side boosters, respectively. And the United Launch Alliance handles the upper stage.
All of those components need to work together for a mission to be successful. But NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) recently said it was concerned about the disjointed way the complicated system was being developed and tested.
At an ASAP meeting last month, Paul Hill, a member of the panel and a former flight and mission operations director at the agency, said the “panel has great concern about the end-to-end integrated test capability and plans, especially for flight software.”
Instead of one comprehensive avionics and software test to mimic flight, he said, there is “instead multiple and separate labs; emulators and simulations are being used to test subsets of the software.”
“As much as possible, flight systems should be developed for success, with the goal to test like you fly. In the same way that NASA’s operations teams train the way you fly and fly the way you train,” Hill said.
Also troubling to the safety panel was that NASA and its contractors appeared not to have taken “advantage of the lessons learned” from the botched flight last year of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft, which suffered a pair of software errors that prevented it from docking with the International Space Station as planned and forced controllers to cut the mission short.
NASA has since said that it did a poor job of overseeing Boeing on the Starliner program, and has since vowed to have more rigorous reviews of its work, especially its software testing.
The SLS software concerns are the latest red flags for a program that has struggled to overcome a series of cost overruns and setbacks. A slew of government watchdog reports over the years have painted a troubling picture of mismanagement.
Three years ago, the NASA Inspector General reported in an audit that NASA had spent more than $15 billion on SLS, the Orion spacecraft and their associated ground systems between 2012 and 2016. It estimated the total would reach $23 billion.
The report chided Boeing, the main contractor, which it said “consistently underestimated the scope of the work to be performed and thus the size and skills of the workforce required.”
Another report, by the Government Accountability Office last year, found that despite Boeing’s poor performance, NASA continued to pay it tens of millions of dollars in “award fees” for scoring high on evaluations.
NASA says now that the program is finally on track, with the vehicle undergoing a series of rigorous tests known as the “Green Run” at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi that will culminate with a “hot fire” — the ignition and eight-minute burn of its engines scheduled for later this year.
Then it would be moved to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, ahead of its first launch, currently scheduled for late 2021. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine said “all of the elements that we need for a successful 2024 moon landing are underway as part of the agency’s Artemis program. And we’re moving rapidly to achieve that goal” — a dramatic White House-ordered acceleration of the original timetable that foresaw a moon landing in 2028.
For that deadline to be achieved, however, the flight software has to work perfectly. The first test is expected to come late next year, when the SLS would fly for the first time in the Artemis I mission, putting the Orion spacecraft without any crews on board in orbit around the moon.
“When it all comes down to it, flight software is the functional integration piece of the rocket,” Dan Mitchell, NASA’s senior technical leader for SLS avionics and software engineering, said in an interview. “The rocket doesn’t fly without flight software. The software commands all the valves and the engines. It takes reasons of all the parameters inside the vehicle, the navigation and position information and uses all that information to control the fight.”
There was perhaps no better illustration of the significant role software plays in space flight, and how flaws in the coding can have severe consequences, than Starliner’s test flight.
Shortly after it reached orbit, the spacecraft, which had no astronauts on board, ran into trouble because the spacecraft’s flight computers were 11 hours off. With the spacecraft thinking it was at an entirely different point in the mission, it attempted to correct its course, burning precious fuel and forcing controllers to end the mission early without completing the main goal: docking with the International Space Station. Controllers later found another software problem that could have caused the service module to collide with the crew capsule after separation, potentially endangering astronauts, if any had been on board.
Boeing was able to diagnose the problem, send up a software fix and ultimately bring the spacecraft down safely. Later, Boeing said its testing of the software was deeply flawed, allowing the two problems to go undetected in the spacecraft’s one million lines of code. It was an admission reminiscent of the software problems that plagued its 737 Max airplane, which suffered two crashes that killed 346 people combined and remains grounded worldwide.
Boeing officials have said that during the test flight, the Starliner was pulling its time from the rocket. During testing, officials were mainly focused on making sure the two vehicles were communicating correctly, but cut short the test so that it never uncovered that the spacecraft was reading the wrong time.
If the test had continued, “we would have caught it,” John Mulholland said earlier this year, when he was the Starliner program manager for Boeing. He’s since transferred to Boeing’s space station program.
During the software test for the service module separation, Boeing didn’t use the actual hardware but rather an “emulator,” a computer system designed to mimic the service module. The problem was the emulator had the wrong thruster configuration programmed in at the time of the test, Mulholland said.
NASA officials in charge of the SLS program said they are confident the testing protocols for the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft are far more robust. For starters, the program is set up differently. Boeing owns and operates the Starliner spacecraft and uses it to perform a service for NASA — namely flying its astronauts to the space station.
On the SLS program, by contrast, NASA owns and will operate the rocket, and is responsible for all the integrated testing.
Mitchell, the NASA senior technical leader, said the SLS team took the Starliner mishap “to heart.” As a result, they spent four days testing the various interfaces between the SLS and Orion, he said. “We methodically walked through requirement by requirement. ... It was a very, very detailed and fruitful interaction that we had across all the interfaces,” he said.
The review turned up one issue with how the rocket’s second stage interpreted data from the first stage, he said, but that “has been determined to be a benign issue” that doesn’t require any modifications at this time.
NASA pushed back on the safety panel’s findings, saying in a statement that “all software, hardware, and combination for every phase of the Artemis I mission is thoroughly tested and evaluated to ensure that it meets NASA’s strict safety requirements and is fully qualified for human spaceflight.”
The agency and its contractors are “conducting integrated end-to-end testing for the software, hardware, avionics and integrated systems needed to fly Artemis missions,” it said.
Once the vehicle is moved to the Kennedy Space Center, testing will continue with a “countdown demonstration and wet dress rehearsal [by fueling the rocket] with the rocket, spacecraft, and ground systems prior to the Artemis I launch.”
Speaking to reporters in October, John Shannon, a Boeing vice president who oversees the SLS program, said the core stage holds “the brains” of the rocket, the avionics, flight computers and “the systems to control the vehicle.”
But he said the company’s portion of software development and testing was limited to what’s called the “stage controller,” or “ground software that commands the vehicle itself.”
Shannon said the systems have been “completed, tested in integration facilities at [NASA’s] Marshall Space Flight Center. We’ve had independent verification and validation on it to show that it works well with the flight software and the stand controller software. And it’s all all ready to go.”
So it seems they are not scrapping the SLS after all. Guess they end up with a few launches on it and most bought from other solutions. The ratio set by the US Congress and not NASA.
And another delay this time with the Orion spacecraft that was just discovered, looks like a potential 2021 launch is gone.
Engineers are racing to fix a failed piece of equipment on NASA’s future deep-space crew capsule Orion ahead of its first flight to space. It may require months of work to replace and fix. Right now, engineers at NASA and Orion’s primary contractor, Lockheed Martin, are trying to figure out the best way to fix the component and how much time the repairs are going to take.
In early November, engineers at Lockheed Martin working on Orion noticed that a power component inside the vehicle had failed, according to an internal email and an internal PowerPoint presentation seen by The Verge. The component is within one of the spacecraft’s eight power and data units, or PDUs. The PDUs are the “main power/data boxes,” for Orion according to the email, responsible for activating key systems that Orion needs during flight.
Orion is a critical part of NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to send the first woman and the next man to the Moon by 2024. The cone-shaped capsule is designed to launch on top of a future rocket called the Space Launch System, or SLS, a vehicle that NASA has been building for the last decade. To test out both of these systems’ capabilities, NASA plans to launch an uncrewed Orion capsule on top of the SLS on the rocket’s first flight in late 2021 — a mission called Artemis I.
While the SLS still has many key tests to undergo before that flight, the Orion capsule slated to fly on that first mission is mostly assembled, waiting in Florida at NASA’s Operation and Checkout Facility at Kennedy Space Center. NASA had planned to transfer the Orion capsule to the Multi-Payload Processing Facility (MPPF) at KSC on December 7th, though that rollout may be postponed due to this issue. When asked for a comment, NASA directed The Verge to a short blog post published today outlining the failure.
“While the PDU is still fully operational without this redundant channel we are swiftly trouble shooting the card while also continuing close-out activities on Orion,” a representative for Lockheed Martin said in a statement to The Verge. “We are fully committed to seeing Orion launch next year on its historic Artemis I mission to the Moon.
Replacing the PDU isn’t easy. The component is difficult to reach: it’s located inside an adapter that connects Orion to its service module — a cylindrical trunk that provides support, propulsion, and power for the capsule during its trip through space. To get to the PDU, Lockheed Martin could remove the Orion crew capsule from its service module, but it’s a lengthy process that could take up to a year. As many as nine months would be needed to take the vehicle apart and put it back together again, in addition to three months for subsequent testing, according to the presentation.
Lockheed has another option, but it’s never been done before and may carry extra risks, Lockheed Martin engineers acknowledge in their presentation. To do it, engineers would have to tunnel through the adapter’s exterior by removing some of the outer panels of the adapter to get to the PDU. The panels weren’t designed to be removed this way, but this scenario may only take up to four months to complete if engineers figure out a way to do it.
A third option is that Lockheed Martin and NASA could fly the Orion capsule as is. The PDU failed in such a way that it lost redundancy within the unit, so it can still function. But at a risk-averse agency like NASA, flying a vehicle without a backup plan is not exactly an attractive option. It’s still not clear what went wrong inside the unit, which was tested before it was installed on the spacecraft, according to a person familiar with the matter.
If engineers choose to remove Orion from its service module, the capsule’s first flight on the SLS may be delayed past its current date of November 2021. But the SLS has experienced its own set of delays: it was supposed to fly for the first time in 2017 but hasn’t done so yet. It’s not clear if the SLS itself will make the November 2021 flight date either; a key test of the rocket coming up at the end of the year has been pushed back, with no new target date set. So it’s possible that Lockheed Martin and NASA can fix Orion before the SLS is ready to fly.
Any further delays to Artemis I add uncertainty to NASA’s lunar landing timeline. NASA is hoping to land astronauts on the Moon by 2024, though many experts are skeptical that such a mission can be pulled off in time. Artemis I is vulnerable to other possible delays, but the component failure adds one more level of uncertainty to when the Orion and SLS combo will get off the ground.
Following a test readiness review on Monday, NASA is now targeting Saturday, Jan. 16, for the final test in the Green Run testing series for the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket that will launch the agency’s Artemis I mission. NASA will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EST Tuesday, Jan.12, to discuss the test, known as the hot fire, which will take place at NASA’s Stennis Space Center near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
During the test, engineers will power up all the core stage systems, load more than 700,000 gallons of cryogenic, or supercold, propellant into the tanks and fire all four engines at the same time.
The Green Run test series is a comprehensive assessment of the rocket’s core stage prior to SLS launching Artemis missions to the Moon. The core stage includes the liquid hydrogen tank and liquid oxygen tank, four RS-25 engines, and the computers, electronics, and avionics that serve as the “brains” of the rocket. NASA has completed seven of the eight core stage Green Run tests, including loading and draining propellant for the first time during the most recent test, the wet dress rehearsal, on Dec. 20. During the upcoming hot fire test, all four engines will fire to simulate the stage’s operation during launch.
This is just pure pork and corruption at this point...
The bill would also require NASA to continue development of the "Exploration Upper Stage," which is a new, more powerful second stage for the agency's Space Launch System rocket. Moreover, the bill says this upper stage should be ready for use on the third launch of the rocket.
There's just one problem with this requirement—NASA says it doesn't need the Exploration Upper Stage to complete its early Artemis Moon missions. The first launches will use a commercially available upper stage, which is powerful enough to launch a crew of astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft to the Moon.
This legislation therefore burdens NASA with the upper stage development—likely to cost about $10 billion and take five years—at a time when the agency is busy enough trying to complete the first Moon missions. And although they will not admit this publicly, some NASA engineers are not even sure they need the upper stage. If SpaceX's Starship vehicle is successful, it would be more powerful, cost less, and fly more frequently than the SLS rocket, even with its advanced upper stage.
It is not too difficult to see the hand of Boeing behind this legislative requirement, as the company has the prime contract to develop the Exploration Upper Stage.
Main propulsion test article
There is one other novel aspect of this legislation that really drives home its parochial bent. The Cantwell-Wicker amendment says NASA should "initiate development of a main propulsion test article for the integrated core stage propulsion elements of the Space Launch System, consistent with cost and schedule constraints, particularly for long-lead propulsion hardware needed for flight."
So what is this? It's basically a test article of the SLS rocket's core stage. Such an element, which NASA has not asked for, would effectively allow NASA and Boeing to perform tests on an SLS prototype at Stennis Space Center in Southern Mississippi in perpetuity.
The backstory to this proposal is that Wicker, the Mississippi senator, is not happy that NASA only planned to perform a series of "Green Run" tests at Stennis on the very first core stage. (NASA completed this core stage test in March and has since shipped the first SLS rocket to Florida). A single test, the agency reasoned, would be enough to validate the technology.
With this legislation, however, NASA could do more tests, keeping Wicker's center fully engaged and local contractors gainfully employed. Whether it would advance NASA's exploration efforts, however, is a far more dubious proposition.
So Boeing has come up with a "theoretical" mission to flyby Mars using the SLS in 2033. Only problem is that 4 out of the 5 things mentioned in the slides, don't exist. Even on paper. And if history is any judge this won't even be considered let alone greenlit. 2033 is twelve years away, the SLS was proposed 10 years ago and hasn't even flown yet.
Publicly NASA is still holding onto the possibility of a 2021 launch date for the debut flight of its Space Launch System rocket. This week, an agency spokesperson told Ars that "NASA is working toward a launch for the Artemis I mission by the end of this year."
However, a source said the best-case scenario for launching the Artemis 1 mission is spring of next year, with summer the more realistic target for a test flight of the heavy lift rocket and Orion spacecraft. The space agency is already running about two months behind internal targets for testing and integrating the rocket at Kennedy Space Center, and the critical pre-flight tests remain ahead.
NASA's Kathryn Hambleton acknowledged that the space agency has seen schedule slips. "The agency continues to monitor the rise of COVID cases in the Kennedy area, which combined with other factors such as weather and first time operations, is impacting our schedule of operations," she said. "Moving step by step, we are progressing toward launch while keeping our team as safe as possible."
Earlier this summer technicians and engineers in Florida completed stacking the SLS rocket, along with its side boosters. A "mass simulator" for Orion was then placed atop the rocket. At present NASA and its contractors are working on vibration tests of the assembled rocket, with the goal of better understanding the difference between the natural vibrations of the full stack versus those caused by external forces. This information will be fed into flight software.
NASA originally hoped to complete this work in July, but Hambleton confirmed to Ars that this vibration, or "modal" testing, is ongoing in the Vehicle Assembly Building at Kennedy Space Center.
Following this testing, the mass simulator will be removed, and the Orion spacecraft with its launch abort system will be stacked carefully on top of the rocket. This process may take a few weeks. Following this assembly and further tests, the SLS stack will be rolled to Launch Pad 39B for a "wet dress rehearsal," during which the vehicle will be fueled and much of an actual countdown simulated. However, the vehicle's engines will not be fired. A source said this wet-dress test will likely take place in November or December.
Following this test, the vehicle will be rolled back into the Vehicle Assembly Building for final checks and closeouts. Assuming the wet dress rehearsal proceeds nominally and other activities continue on schedule, the SLS rocket could launch next spring. However if there are further delays, or if the wet dress rehearsal identifies new issues, the launch would more likely slip to next summer.
Hambleton said NASA plans to soon offer an update on launch dates. After modal testing and stacking of Orion on top of the rocket, she said the agency will release a projected date for the wet dress rehearsal and the launch of the rocket itself. "As always, we will fly only when we are ready," she said.
Although years late and many billions of dollars over budget, the launch of this rocket will in some ways be a minor miracle. For a large bureaucracy like NASA, completing complex human spaceflight tasks is difficult. And the SLS rocket is complex both technically and politically.
Concerned about job losses after the space shuttle retired, Congress imposed this rocket on the space agency, down to dictating its various components to ensure that space shuttle contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Aerojet Rocketdyne continued to receive substantial space program funding. Each contractor was given a "cost plus" contract that ensured funding but provided little incentive for on-time delivery.
The legislation creating the Space Launch System was passed in October 2010, at which time the rocket was expected to be ready for operations in 2016. One of the key legislators behind the rocket's creation was then Florida-Senator Bill Nelson. He relentlessly fought against the Obama administration's effort to see if private companies, such as United Launch Alliance and SpaceX, could more efficiently build a large rocket for NASA. The space agency and its traditional contractors could do the job better than anyone, he said.
"This rocket is coming in at the cost of what not only what we estimated in the NASA Authorization act, but less,” Nelson said at the time. “The cost of the rocket over a five- to six-year period in the NASA authorization bill was to be no more than $11.5 billion.” Later, he went further, saying, "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop."
More than a decade later, NASA has spent more than $20 billion to reach the launch pad. And Nelson is no longer a US Senator, he is the administrator of the space agency. The shop remains open.
Pffft lol. This has Bill Nelson written all over it.
NASA has asked the US aerospace industry how it would go about "maximizing the long-term efficiency and sustainability" of the Space Launch System rocket and its associated ground systems.
The request comes as NASA and its chief contractor for the rocket, Boeing, are nearing the launch pad after a long, arduous, and expensive development process that has lasted more than a decade. The heavy lift SLS rocket, carrying an Orion space capsule, should finally make its debut during the first half of 2022.
In its request NASA says it would like to fly the SLS rocket for "30 years or more" as a national capability. Moreover, the agency wants the rocket to become a "sustainable and affordable system for moving humans and large cargo payloads to cislunar and deep-space destinations."
NASA sees itself as the "anchor tenant" of the launch system and procuring one crewed flight per year for the next decade or longer. Where appropriate, the agency said, industry will "market" the large launch vehicle to other customers, including the science community and other government and non-government entities.
NASA has asked the US aerospace industry how it would go about "maximizing the long-term efficiency and sustainability" of the Space Launch System rocket and its associated ground systems.
The request comes as NASA and its chief contractor for the rocket, Boeing, are nearing the launch pad after a long, arduous, and expensive development process that has lasted more than a decade. The heavy lift SLS rocket, carrying an Orion space capsule, should finally make its debut during the first half of 2022.
In its request NASA says it would like to fly the SLS rocket for "30 years or more" as a national capability. Moreover, the agency wants the rocket to become a "sustainable and affordable system for moving humans and large cargo payloads to cislunar and deep-space destinations."
NASA sees itself as the "anchor tenant" of the launch system and procuring one crewed flight per year for the next decade or longer. Where appropriate, the agency said, industry will "market" the large launch vehicle to other customers, including the science community and other government and non-government entities.
I mean what else can, honestly, go wrong at this point?
NASA plans to replace an engine controller aboard its massive SLS rocket after finding a communications glitch with the system’s avionics during pre-flight testing, the latest setback in a program for which Boeing Co. is the main contractor and that has been plagued by years of delays and billions of dollars in costs beyond its initial budget.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration also said Friday it will explore launch dates for a test flight in March and April.
The rocket, which Congress authorized and began funding in 2010, was supposed to fly in late 2016. In October, NASA solicited ideas from the aerospace industry about ways to lower the costs associated with the Space Launch System.
Replacing the unit on one of the SLS’s four RS-25 engines is “the best course of action,” the agency said. The update comes after engineers preparing the rocket for flight detected a communications problem last month between the rocket’s avionics system and the No. 4 engine, and began troubleshooting the issue.
NASA plans to use the Space Launch System rocket and Orion crew capsule to return astronauts to the moon later this decade. It had set a tentative launch date of Feb. 12 for the SLS-Orion system’s initial uncrewed Artemis 1 test flight around the moon.
Boeing is the rocket’s prime contractor and the RS-25 engines, which date to the Space Shuttle program, are supplied by Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings Inc. The main contractor for the Orion crew capsule, which is designed to take astronauts to deep space, is Lockheed Martin Corp.
For its initial four Artemis flights, NASA will likely spend $4.1 billion per launch for SLS and the Orion capsule, totaling $16.4 billion, according to a Nov. 15 NASA Inspector General report. The agency has spent more than $11 billion to date on the rocket. That document also predicted the first Artemis flight won’t be ready to launch before the summer of 2022.
As much as I want SLS to succeed, I really want NASA to pull the plug on this after the first launch. It's an absurd amount of money to pay for substandard contractor work. The delays, costs overruns, and poor planning should have killed it after 5 years imo. Charge the money lost to the game and move on.
On March 15 2022 08:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: As much as I want SLS to succeed, I really want NASA to pull the plug on this after the first launch. It's an absurd amount of money to pay for substandard contractor work. The delays, costs overruns, and poor planning should have killed it after 5 years imo. Charge the money lost to the game and move on.
Too entrenched politically to make that happen, (barring it doesn't explode on the pad). Block 2 of SLS is a solid workhorse to be used for the Lunar Surface and TLI. 40-50 tons with one launch is a useful skill toi have. But yeah, if Bridenstine was still in charge I could see SLS getting stripped away. howevers ... 4-5 billion a launch ... that could be 20-30 Falcon Heavy's. That be the entire Lunar Gateway set up + some actual habitation modules on the surface for a single SLS launch.
On March 15 2022 08:59 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: As much as I want SLS to succeed, I really want NASA to pull the plug on this after the first launch. It's an absurd amount of money to pay for substandard contractor work. The delays, costs overruns, and poor planning should have killed it after 5 years imo. Charge the money lost to the game and move on.
Too entrenched politically to make that happen, (barring it doesn't explode on the pad). Block 2 of SLS is a solid workhorse to be used for the Lunar Surface and TLI. 40-50 tons with one launch is a useful skill toi have. But yeah, if Bridenstine was still in charge I could see SLS getting stripped away. howevers ... 4-5 billion a launch ... that could be 20-30 Falcon Heavy's. That be the entire Lunar Gateway set up + some actual habitation modules on the surface for a single SLS launch.
Agreed that the Block 2 is useful. Like I said, I want it to succeed but I cannot justify that price at all. I'm not saying give it all to SpaceX but they're the furthest ahead and have a really good thing going with Starship and their other systems. I can see them not wanting to be shown playing favorites or creating a monopoly with SpaceX but until others catch up or at least prove they can deliver as SpaceX has, then fuck seeming impropriety and get that show on the road. You could launch 10 Starships for the price of 1 SLS and get a lot more stuff into orbit.
NASA is planning to proceed with a modified wet dress rehearsal, primarily focused on tanking the core stage, and minimal propellant operations on the interim cryogenic propulsion stage (ICPS) with the ground systems at Kennedy. Due to the changes in loading procedures required for the modified test, wet dress rehearsal testing is slated to resume with call to stations on Tuesday, April 12 and tanking on Thursday, April 14. Wet dress rehearsal is an opportunity to refine the countdown procedures and validate critical models and software interfaces. The modified test will enable engineers to achieve the test objectives critical to launch success.
Engineers have identified a helium check valve that is not functioning as expected, requiring these changes to ensure safety of the flight hardware. Helium is used for several different operations, including purging the engine, or clearing the lines, prior to loading propellants during tanking, as well as draining propellant. A check valve is a type of valve that allows liquid or gas to flow in a particular direction and prevents backflow. The helium check valve is about three inches long and prevents the helium from flowing back out of the rocket.
Following the modified test, the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft will return to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) where engineers will evaluate the valve and replace if needed. Teams are confident in the ability to replace the valve once back in the VAB.
NASA will host a teleconference to discuss details on Monday, April 11. Check back at this blog for an update on the countdown timeline prior to the modified wet dress rehearsal testing for the Artemis I mission. NASA is streaming live video of the rocket and spacecraft on the Kennedy Newsroom YouTube channel.
I believe SLS itself is a 1/75 chance of failure as well. I hope Artemis 1 works flawlessly regardless. NASA needs a big win if a Lunar foothold can be gained. CLPS missions have all been delayed + ballooned budget and some cancelled.
Next potential launch scheduled for this Friday. Keep in mind the SLS has still not had a full dress rehearsal yet.
NASA is moving ahead with plans for a second attempt to launch its next-generation rocket Friday, September 2nd, after an engine issue forced the agency to scrub today’s planned launch.
NASA halted the Artemis I launch attempt at approximately 8:34AM ET Monday, citing the failure of one of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket’s four engines to reach the appropriate temperate. SLS is a key component of NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to send humans back to the Moon by 2025.
The next attempt is scheduled for Friday, September 2nd, at approximately 12:48PM ET. Michael Sarafin, Artemis mission manager, said that Friday is “definitely in play” but noted that the agency’s team needs time to comb through the data before making any determinations about the likelihood of a successful launch.
“There’s a non-zero chance we’ll have a launch opportunity on Friday,” Sarafin said during a briefing with reporters. “We’re going to play all nine innings here. We’re not ready to give up yet.”
NASA officials provided some more context on the engine issue that led to today’s launch getting scrubbed. The launch team had trouble getting one of the four RS-25 engines to the proper temperature for liftoff, which led to the decision to delay. Temperatures for the engines need to register at 500 Rankine for a launch to be feasible, Sarafin said.
“Once we got through the propellant loading on the rocket, both on core stage and the upper stage, they started the engine bleed,” Sarafin said. “We talked in our flight readiness review about the engine bleed. We knew that that was a risk heading into this launch campaign, and it would be the first time demonstrating that successfully.”
Sarafin said that the engine needs to be at a “cryogenically cool temperature such that when it starts, it’s not shocked with all the cold fuel that flows through it. So we needed a little extra time to assess that.”
But officials cautioned that today’s delay should not be viewed as an engine malfunction but rather an issue with the bleed system. The launch “never fully got into the engine bleed” during a previous “wet dress rehearsal” of the rocket launch earlier this year, Sarafin acknowledged, adding that officials knew it could be a risk for today’s launch.
Sarafin called the last 48 hours “very dynamic,” including a hydrogen leak that was quickly resolved and several lightning strikes on the towers holding up the SLS rocket. But asked whether the rocket may need to be “pushed back” from its position on the launch pad, officials demurred.
“That’s getting ahead of our data reviews, and we need the team to get rested and come back tomorrow,” Sarafin said. “We’re going to do our best to see where the data leads us and if we can resolve it operationally out at the pad.”
The next few days will be crucial for NASA as it examines all the data that contributed to today’s delay. And in the run-up to the next two launch windows, time will be working against the agency.
The next attempt is scheduled for Friday, September 2nd, at approximately 12:48PM ET. If that launch is successful, the mission will last 39 days, with the Orion crew capsule splashing down in the ocean on October 11th. If it doesn’t launch then, a third launch window will open on Monday, September 5th.
But if NASA determines that the rocket needs to be moved from the launchpad to the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at Kennedy Space Center, those dates could be changed. Before each launch, teams must fully test the flight termination system, which is used to destroy the rocket if something goes catastrophically wrong during the launch, and that work can only be done inside the VAB. That testing takes time, so if SLS is forced to come back to the VAB after rolling out in August, chances are it wouldn’t be ready to fly until late October.
Jim Free, associate administrator for NASA’s Exploration Systems Development, concluded with some advice for those who were hoping to see a rocket launch today, including Vice President Kamala Harris: “Plan a week-long vacation in Florida, and you might see a launch.”
How can Space X basically send a rocket up there every other week and NASA can't get one start done? I understand Artemis is a new rocket, but the science of getting up there is same, isn't it?
No launch attempt next week, still deciding on whether to roll back the rocket. Which NASA seems desperate not to do, despite a major hurricane headed their way. Almost as if they DON'T want to find problems on the ship when it is rolled back.
Didn't get a chance to catch the teleconference, was there any major damage? I don't want to be a debbie downer, but jesus I don't like the odds for a successful mission at this point. They've rolled this monster back and forth a dozen times adding more wear and tear, let alone a damn hurricane.
Depends on who ask. But logic dictates on why said debris was there in the first place. Which if it fails *knock on wood* will be part of a Senate hearings for YEARS to come.
First crew announced for the Artemis program. Will do an Apollo 8 redux. Now the question will be who gets there first a Starship, or an SLS ship...?
HOUSTON — For the first time since the Apollo era, NASA on Monday named a crew of astronauts for a lunar expedition.
The astronauts will fly around the moon in a mission that would precede the first human landing there since 1972.
In an event here, NASA officials said astronauts Christina Koch, Victor Glover and Reid Wiseman will be joined by Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen on the Artemis II mission, which is scheduled to launch late next year.
The announcement comes about four months after the successful completion of the Artemis I flight, a test that for the first time launched the massive Space Launch System rocket and sent the Orion crew capsule, without any astronauts on board, in orbit around the moon.
With the naming of the crew, a diverse group that includes the first woman, African American and Canadian to fly on a moon mission, NASA’s Artemis campaign now has human faces attached to it — some of the best and brightest of the astronaut corps — which the space agency hopes will help solidify its support among members of Congress as it prepares for its next flights.
Those missions are months away, however, and likely to be delayed. And the attention of Congress and the American people is often fickle, especially when it comes to space exploration. Even during the height of the Apollo era, polling showed that people’s interest soon waned after the first lunar landing and that they wondered why money wasn’t being spent on projects back home.
But so far, NASA has, for the first time in decades, been able to build momentum for a deep-space exploration campaign. Last month, the White House proposed a $27.2 billion budget for NASA, a 7 percent increase over this year, with increased funding for Artemis. The Artemis program is also designed to be more politically resilient with the participation and investment of other countries, the growing commercial space industry, and more ambitious mission objectives.
The introductions came a few miles from the Johnson Space Center, in a hangar at Ellington Field, used for astronaut flight training. Many of the active astronauts were in attendance, save for the two currently on the International Space Station, as the names of the four crew members were called. Taking the stage to rousing cheers, they were lauded by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson as “the first humans to fly to the vicinity of the moon in more than 50 years.”
Unlike the Apollo missions, in which 12 men walked on the lunar surface and then came home, the Artemis program aims to build a more sustainable presence on and around the moon. It is planning to assemble a space station, known as Gateway, in lunar orbit that astronauts would visit on their way to the moon’s surface. Instead of returning to the moon’s equatorial region, NASA is now focused on the lunar south pole, where there is water in the form of ice in its permanently shadowed craters. Water is not only vital for human life, but its component parts — hydrogen and oxygen — can be used as rocket propellant.
As the United States prepares to return humans to the moon, Nelson has said the country is in a space race with China, which is also planning to send astronauts to the south pole. It has also been working to establish norms of behavior that would govern activities in space and on the moon by having allied nations sign an agreement known as the Artemis Accords.
As part of the Artemis program, NASA has said the first woman and the first person of color would walk on the moon as it seeks to create a more diverse astronaut corps. And the Artemis II crew embodied that diversity. “We’re not truly answering humanity’s call to explore unless we represent all of humanity,” Koch said in an interview. “And it’s awesome to be a part of this mission during a time when we recognize how important that is.”
Koch, who flew to the International Space Station in 2019 on a Russian Soyuz rocket, was part of the first all-female spacewalk. She also holds the record for the longest single spaceflight by a woman with a total of 328 days in space. She began her career as an electrical engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.
Glover is a Navy captain and a fighter jet test pilot, who flew on SpaceX’s first operational human spaceflight mission. He would serve as the Artemis II mission pilot. Wiseman, also a Navy captain, would be the commander. His previous spaceflight was in 2014 aboard a Russian Soyuz. Hansen was chosen as the first Canadian to lead a NASA astronaut class in 2017, but has not flown to space before.
“Each of these adventurers has their own story, but together they represent our creed: e pluribus unum, out of many one,” Nelson said in introducing the crew. “This is the power of space. This is the power of our space program. It unites people.”
Speaking to a cheering crowd, Glover said, “I pray that we can continue to serve as a source of inspiration for cooperation and peace not just between nations but in our own nation.”
The Artemis II mission would be somewhat similar to Apollo 8, in which Frank Borman, Jim Lovell and Bill Anders orbited the moon in 1968 before the Apollo 11 landing by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. The last of the Apollo missions was Apollo 17, and no people have been back to the vicinity of the moon since.
The Artemis II crew is to travel 6,400 miles beyond the far side of the moon in what is known as a “free-return trajectory,” where Earth’s gravity will pull Orion back after the spacecraft flies by the moon, NASA has said. Beyond the moon, the crew “will be able to see the Earth and the moon from Orion’s windows, with the moon close in the foreground and the Earth nearly a quarter-million miles in the background,” according to the space agency. The entire trip is expected to last about 10 days.
Glover said in an interview that the training for the mission should start this summer, and that it would take about 18 months. While the astronauts won’t land on the surface or dock with another spacecraft, they will test out Orion’s maneuvering capabilities, reorienting it once it separates from the second stage.
Asked whether he was disappointed that an assignment to Artemis II might preclude him from the next mission and a landing on the lunar surface, he said, “No. The best mission is the one in front of you.”
The astronauts here are also training on other new spacecraft. In addition to the Orion capsule, NASA flies crews to the International Space Station on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft.
Boeing also has a contract to fly astronauts to the orbiting laboratory, but it recently said its first flight with astronauts would be delayed again, this time to July, as it continues to work with NASA to make sure its Starliner spacecraft meets all of NASA’s requirements.
SpaceX also won the contract to develop the spacecraft that would meet up with Orion in lunar orbit and then ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon for the Artemis III lunar landing flight. SpaceX is hoping to launch Starship, a fully reusable vehicle, for the first time later this month from its facility in South Texas.
Given the complexity of the new systems, the Artemis II flight could easily slip into 2025, and a human landing, tentatively scheduled for 2025, could also be delayed.
Oh so I didnt know this, but apparently because of Europe's contribution to Orion, they're getting 3 seats in the upcoming Artemis projects. So they say they're going to have a European on the Moon by the end of the decade.
Aaaand the news is not good. As everyone expected. Congress just needs to order NASA to sever the relationship with Boeing, it is dead and has been for a while. Cause as of right now the only hope NASA/US have for getting back to the Moon is with Starship.
In a new report, the federal department charged with analyzing how efficiently US taxpayer dollars are spent, the Government Accountability Office, says NASA lacks transparency on the true costs of its Space Launch System rocket program.
Published on Thursday, the new report (see .pdf) examines the billions of dollars spent by NASA on the development of the massive rocket, which made a successful debut launch in late 2022 with the Artemis I mission. Surprisingly, as part of the reporting process, NASA officials admitted the rocket was too expensive to support its lunar exploration efforts as part of the Artemis program.
"Senior NASA officials told GAO that at current cost levels, the SLS program is unaffordable," the new report states.
Poor tools to understand true costs
The Government Accountability Office expressed serious concerns about NASA's decision not to measure production costs of SLS rocket elements, including the core stages and rocket engines needed for future launches. Instead, NASA told the report authors that it plans to "monitor production costs and affordability of the SLS program via the five-year production and operations cost estimate."
However, the report states, these are "poor tools" for a cost baseline for the SLS rocket program and will make it difficult for taxpayers to measure costs and the performance of NASA and its contractors over time. Moreover, the report indicates that NASA has not regularly updated its five-year production cost estimates for the rocket. The report also cites concerns about development costs of future hardware for NASA's big-ticket rocket program, including the Exploration Upper Stage.
Another problem with NASA's cost estimates is that they do not appear to account for delays to Artemis missions. It is probable that the Artemis II mission, a crewed flight around the Moon, will launch no earlier than 2025. The Artemis III crewed landing will likely slip to at least 2026, if not more, with additional delays down the line. At least one NASA official apparently told the Government Accountability Office that these delays would have no cost impacts, which seems highly improbable.
"Some NASA officials told us that changes to Artemis mission dates should not affect the SLS program’s cost estimate," the report states. "Other officials noted that the program’s cost estimate would be expected to increase to account for the delay to the Artemis IV mission, which shifted from 2026 to 2028."
How to pare back unsustainable costs
NASA officials interviewed by the Government Accountability Office acknowledged that they were concerned about the costs of the SLS rocket.
"NASA recognizes the need to improve the affordability of the SLS program and is taking steps to do so," the report states. "Senior agency officials have told us that at current cost levels the SLS program is unsustainable and exceeds what NASA officials believe will be available for its Artemis missions."
Officials from the space agency said they had a four-step plan to reduce costs of the SLS rocket program over time:
Stabilize the flight schedule
Achieve learning curve efficiencies
Encourage innovation
Adjust acquisition strategies to reduce cost risk
Setting aside that some of these goals sound suspiciously like corporate speak, the report makes clear that these are aspirational aims for now. "NASA, however, has not yet identified specific program-level cost-saving goals which it hopes to achieve," the authors write. "NASA has made some progress toward implementing these strategies, but it is too early to fully evaluate their effect on cost."
Can NASA really control costs?
While NASA certainly deserves credit for talking about the excessive cost of the SLS rocket—a fact that has been pointed out by critics for more than a decade but largely ignored by NASA officials and congressional leaders—it is not at all clear that they will be able to control costs. For example, NASA recently said that it is working with the primary contractor of the SLS rocket's main engines, Aerojet, to reduce the cost of each engine by 30 percent, down to $70.5 million by the end of this decade.
However, NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, said this claim was dubious. According to Martin, when calculating the projected cost savings of the new RS-25 engines, NASA and Aerojet only included material, engineering support, and touch labor, while project management and overhead costs are excluded.
And even at $70.5 million, these engines are very, very far from being affordable compared to the existing US commercial market for powerful rocket engines. Blue Origin manufactures an engine of comparable power and size, the BE-4, for less than $20 million. And SpaceX is seeking to push the similarly powerful Raptor rocket engine costs even lower, to less than $1 million per engine.
NASA is acknowledging that the SLS is unaffordable and that costs will continue to rise in the future... solution? Seek out Commercial missions rather than use the SLS, only problem is that the SLS is a giant pork project so there cannot be anything else. Right now Boeing is having to pay for the delays and overages, which is over a billion dollars.
In recent years NASA has acknowledged that its large Space Launch System rocket is unaffordable and has sought to bring its costs down to a more reasonable level. The most recent estimate is that it costs $2.2 billion to build a single SLS rocket, and this does not include add-ons such as ground systems, integration, a payload, and more.
Broadly speaking, NASA's cost-reduction plan is to transfer responsibility for production of the rocket to a new company co-owned by Boeing and Northrop Grumman, which are key contractors for the rocket. This company, "Deep Space Transport," would then build the rockets and sell them to NASA. The space agency has said that this services-based model could reduce the cost of the rocket by as much as 50 percent.
However, in a damning new report, NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, says that is not going to happen. Rather, Martin writes, the cost of building the rocket is actually likely to increase.
"Our analysis shows a single SLS Block 1B will cost at least $2.5 billion to produce—not including Systems Engineering and Integration costs—and NASA’s aspirational goal to achieve a cost savings of 50 percent is highly unrealistic," Martin wrote in an audit of the agency's plans, which was published on Thursday.
Extremely high costs
The main problem with the SLS rocket is not its performance—the vehicle's debut during the Artemis I mission in late 2022 was virtually flawless—but rather its extremely high cost. Independent reviews of the vehicle, which Congress mandated that NASA build more than a decade ago, have found that NASA is unlikely to have a sustainable deep space exploration program built around such an expensive heavy-lift rocket.
Digging into Martin's report, it's not difficult to see why. The SLS rocket is powered by four main engines derived from the Space Shuttle program. The cost of these four engines is $582.7 million, or $146 million per engine. This means that a single engine on NASA's rocket costs roughly the same amount that the space agency paid for an entire mission on the Falcon Heavy rocket—$178 million for the Europa Clipper spacecraft.
Seriously, stop and think about that.
"Given the enormous costs of the Artemis campaign, it is crucial that NASA achieve some significant measure of its affordability goals," Martin wrote in the new report. "Failure to do so will significantly hinder the sustainability of NASA’s deep space human exploration efforts."
Cost savings are unlikely
However, he said, NASA's approach to saving money is unlikely to work. Martin bases his conclusion on a number of persuasive factors. But the main reason is that NASA's estimate of a 50 percent cost reduction appears to be based on magical and wishful thinking.
Boeing is the contractor that builds the core stage of the SLS rocket, which includes the propellant tanks and four main engines. Martin notes that Boeing only reduced its workforce by 13 percent as it moved from building the rocket's first core stage to the second one. Then, the report drily adds, "Boeing historically has increased costs under their contracts."
Nor are savings likely to come from the engines, despite the fact that their per-unit cost is nearly $150 million. Rather, Martin's analysis finds that the cost of future engines is likely to go up: "Despite initiatives aimed at cutting costs by gaining manufacturing efficiencies utilizing 3D printing and using less costly materials for RS-25 engines beyond Artemis VII, we instead found cost increases for future engines."
Martin also notes that there is no incentive for Deep Space Transport to lower its prices. The agency has not committed to move to fixed-price contracting and has allowed Boeing to incorporate limited rights data into the design of the core stage. In other words, no one else can build the SLS rocket, so if the space agency wants to continue to buy them, it must do so from Boeing and Northrop.
Finally, Martin cites history. In the mid-1990s NASA transferred the Space Shuttle production from agency management to a commercial services contract, citing the goal of saving money. Boeing and Lockheed Martin created a new company, United Space Alliance, to provide Shuttle services on a sole-source basis to NASA, like what will be done with the SLS rocket.
So, did costs go down? Alas, no. "As a result of the transfer of Shuttle production and operations responsibilities from NASA-managed contracts to a commercial services contract, we estimate Space Shuttle operations costs increased approximately 38 percent to $1.45 billion per launch," Martin wrote.
Consider buying commercial
As part of his report, Martin makes several recommendations to NASA. Perhaps most strikingly, the inspector general suggests that NASA consider using commercial heavy-lift vehicles as an alternative to the SLS rocket for future Artemis missions.
"The Agency may soon have more affordable commercial options to carry humans to the Moon and beyond," the report states. "In our judgment, the Agency should continue to monitor the commercial development of heavy-lift space flight systems and begin discussions of whether it makes financial and strategic sense to consider these options as part of the Agency’s longer-term plans to support its ambitious space exploration goals."
The politics of this are messy, of course. In 2010, Congress directed NASA to build a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule using existing contracts from the canceled Constellation effort, and this resulted in the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft. Congress has tended not to care as NASA has racked up tens of billions of dollars in development costs for these vehicles.
This may or may not change given the likelihood of budget cuts in the near future. But what now seems clear is that the SLS rocket will never cost less than it does now, and it probably will cost more in the future. Perhaps it is, indeed, time to consider an offramp before NASA signs contracts to buy SLS rockets for the next decade or two.