News Space Launch System News

[Urwumpe]

Launch pad should be shared with smaller vehicles with higher launch rate, and possibly the entire system should be based on the same components, each individually with an high launch rate. A scalable family of launchers.

Not possible that easily - A "once size fits all" launch pad is not really suitable, just like there is no true "once size fits all"-runway. It should be possible to get the requirements standardized enough that at least one group of launchers can share one launch pad. Should be about the same take-off mass/take-off power, similar noise environment, similar fuels, etc. A mobile launcher platform can't abstract all details away from the launch pad.

A pad for a SLS would be greatly over-sized for simply launching a VEGA for example, far more expensive than a smaller solution. Launching a relatively larger rocket could only work if it reduces the costs relative to having its down dedicated launch pad... so a higher flight rate for this expensive pad results in a lower price compared to a cheaper specialized pad with a lower flight rate.

Of course, the launch rate is also limited by the time that a rocket sits on the pad... When you need a week on the pad (including moving the mobile launcher away and loading the next mobile launcher), you can "only" maximal launch 52 rockets per year.

 

[K_Jameson]

A pad for a SLS would be greatly over-sized for simply launching a VEGA for example, far more expensive than a smaller solution.

Never thought to launch VEGA from Pad 39B... but a pad that can accept a 20/25 tons and a 100 tons rocket is not science fiction in my understanding.

 

[DaveS]

Never thought to launch VEGA from Pad 39B... but a pad that can accept a 20/25 tons and a 100 tons rocket is not science fiction in my understanding.

Well, 39B can accept any launch vehicle. The pad is going back to its "clean pad" roots of Apollo/Saturn where all the umbilicals are on the actual launch platform. So as long as launch vehicle can interface with the pad properly, it won't be a problem.

 

[Fabri91]

I may remember something wrong here, but didn't SpaceX test the first returned core on that pad?

 

[DaveS]

I may remember something wrong here, but didn't SpaceX test the first returned core on that pad?

No. SpaceX has a a lease-agreement for 39A, not 39B. And they still have not used 39A for anything. Oh and BTW: You complain about SLS/Orion, but SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is also years behind schedule as well as over budget. It was initially scheduled to launch from SLC-40 in 2012 and now it is July 2016 with the first launch hoped for December.

 

[Urwumpe]

Never thought to launch VEGA from Pad 39B... but a pad that can accept a 20/25 tons and a 100 tons rocket is not science fiction in my understanding.

Not science fiction or impossible - just not economic. You waste a lot of capacity and have higher fixed costs for that pad. You also waste a lot of space, since a pad for a larger launcher has a bigger safety zone around it.

 

[Andy44]

IIRC Congress has mandated that SLS be used for a Europa mission.

Politics shmoitics, were I an engineer working on missions like that, I'd be licking my chops over the size or speed of the vehicles you could send around the Solar System with a heavy launcher like that as opposed to settling for an Atlas V.

 

[K_Jameson]

Not science fiction or impossible - just not economic.

It's not economical to have a facility that is used once every two years.

 

[Urwumpe]

It's not economical to have a facility that is used once every two years.

Exactly. Its all far away from any reasonable demand.

The ideal would be a launchpad, that is constantly used to capacity by rockets that also require everything the launch pad offers. In reality, it would never be that ideal, but not a reason to not approach this reason for a good reason.

 

[Fabri91]

Absolutely, I'm surely not advocating that SpaceX is the Lord and Savior of super-heavy launch vehicles. I just agree that SLS for now appears to be a rocket without a mission.

 

[Urwumpe]

Politics shmoitics, were I an engineer working on missions like that, I'd be licking my chops over the size or speed of the vehicles you could send around the Solar System with a heavy launcher like that as opposed to settling for an Atlas V.

You are no software engineer then, though. :lol: Microservices are the new next best thing to sliced bread.

 

[N_Molson]

Getting people on Mars is going to cost a LOT anyways, and it won't earn money. And that's the ultimate mission of the SLS. The goals and schedules are currently clearly defined. Its not going to be used to deploy pseudo-commercial satellites, or to make any money. It seems that people simply can't understand that nowadays.

So, again, a lot of free SLS-bashing. But nothing new, its been the case from the start, while the Spice-X idolatry level goes periodically up and down.

Link : SLS Monthly Highlights

 

[K_Jameson]

Absolutely, I'm surely not advocating that SpaceX is the Lord and Savior of super-heavy launch vehicles. I just agree that SLS for now appears to be a rocket without a mission.

In a side note, the "revolutionary" crossfeed feature of the rival Falcon Heavy was cancelled, at least for now. Rocket science is not easy, even for Tony Stark... ehm... Elon Musk.

Some news about the name of this rocket? Space Launch System will be the only official name or we can expect, in future, a more evocative name that can ignite our immagination?
For me, a revival of the classic "Nova" would be very cool.

Getting people on Mars is going to cost a LOT anyways, and it won't earn money. And that's the ultimate mission of the SLS. The goals and schedules are currently clearly defined. Its not going to be used to deploy pseudo-commercial satellites, or to make any money. It seems that people simply can't understand that nowadays.

Well, the goal is clear, but the hardware isn't.
We know where we want to go, but how we will go (and with what money) is currently pretty obscure.

 

[N_Molson]

We know where we want to go, but how we will go (and with what money) is currently pretty obscure.

Well, the targeted planetary alignement for a crewed Mars mission is around 2035, so there's still some time to design and test the different modules (20 years). After all, in 1962, astronauts were flying Mercury ; less than 10 years later they were driving a rover on the lunar surface.

 

[DaveS]

Well, the targeted planetary alignement for a crewed Mars mission is around 2035, so there's still some time to design and test the different modules (20 years). After all, in 1962, astronauts were flying Mercury ; less than 10 years later they were driving a rover on the lunar surface.

All due to a political need to upstage the Soviets in the space arena. Sputnik and Vostok was really a wake-up call to the US political leadership that the West was seen as behind and they would not have any of that. That lead to the effort of Project Apollo. While NASA was dreaming of all those Apollo Application Program missions, they only got enough funding for essentially 15 missions (only 15 Saturn Vs were ordered before the production line shut down). That would have lasted them to Apollo 20 based on the actual flown missions. But two got assigned to the Apollo Applications Program and what ended up as Skylab (Prime workshop and a back-up, never launched).

 

[N_Molson]

And then ? I know all that part of history very well, thank you. Also USA was experiencing a growth period like anything before : the Golden 60's. Regardless of the context, it was still a great achievement, something you can be proud of forever, especially as an american.

Hopefully I'll live the same thing than billions people did through radios or TV screens with my childrens in 2035. I'd be very happy with a manned Mars landing, even if the funding only allows several missions. If that kind of "low funding policy" can be sustained until 2030's, that's OK for me.

And given the current lack of trust in common endeavours like Europe, I am much more confident in a national program. Of I'd like to see International cooperation to launch a Mars mission, but given we can't even keep our political integrity...

I think 2035 will be an interesting time. USA ready for Mars and Russia + China ready for the Moon. If humanity can contain its self-destructing rage until then, of course.

 

[Gordontrek]

Naturally I take pride in the fact that America achieved feats like the Saturn V and now the Space Launch System, but what's even more pride-instilling to me is the fact that both were designed and tested right here in my home town of Huntsville. In the 60s, von Braun himself lived here and built and tested the Saturn V's engines. That was well before my time, but my father tells me about dishes rattling in the cabinets when they fired 'em up (and he lived way across town from the test site!). Today Huntsville is also instrumental in the Space Launch System. We have a test stand at the Marshall Space Flight Center that has already conducted a few engine tests. I hope that one day the rocket park in the U.S. Space and Rocket Center can add an SLS rocket to its ranks.

 

[DaveS]

Embarrassingly enough I posted this in the wrong thread:

RS-25 test: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-stennis

 

[GLS]

Holding....

 

[DaveS]

Holding....

Seems like they had to initiate a cut-off around T-1 minute.