Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
That's the whole point of NASA. It was formed specifically to put humans in space and to go beyond earth orbit. If NASA gives up on manned spaceflight it would lose a large part of its reason to exist.
The systems being used in the SLS are based on the Space Shuttle systems, which were designed for manned missions have a fairly good track record. In fact, those elements of the Space Shuttle systems that are incorporated into SLS are the systems that worked the most reliably (once the SRB joint issues were resolved - which they were). The major weakness in the Shuttle system was always the orbiter and its heat protection system was mounted on the side of the booster. With the manned spacecraft placed on the top of the spacecraft, safety is increased by a major factor.
SLS is designed to put HUMANS beyond earth orbit. No other booster can do that.
The systems being used in the SLS are based on the Space Shuttle systems, which were designed for manned missions have a fairly good track record. In fact, those elements of the Space Shuttle systems that are incorporated into SLS are the systems that worked the most reliably (once the SRB joint issues were resolved - which they were). The major weakness in the Shuttle system was always the orbiter and its heat protection system was mounted on the side of the booster. With the manned spacecraft placed on the top of the spacecraft, safety is increased by a major factor.
SLS is designed to put HUMANS beyond earth orbit. No other booster can do that.
NASA WANTS to put humans in space. It's why it was set up in the first place.
It had a gap between 1975 and 1981. It returned to flying humans after that gap. It will do so again after the current gap period.
At the moment, no other manned programme has the capability of lifting humans out of earth's gravity well. That's what SLS is for. All the other manned programmes are low earth orbit craft only. NASA wants to move on from that rather limited capability.
It had a gap between 1975 and 1981. It returned to flying humans after that gap. It will do so again after the current gap period.
At the moment, no other manned programme has the capability of lifting humans out of earth's gravity well. That's what SLS is for. All the other manned programmes are low earth orbit craft only. NASA wants to move on from that rather limited capability.
RobDickinson said:
still it doesnt need that rocket to lift the humans though does it?
NASA's original plan was for a smaller launcher to put the Orion into orbit. This was called the Ares 1. The deep space element would have been launched ( unmanned ) by the Ares V, and a docking performed in Earth orbit before the Ares V upper stage sent the combined spacecraft on its way. Both of these were cancelled by the Obama administration in 2010 and NASA was told to start again with SLS, arguably wasting the 5 years and an estimated $230billion already spent developing Ares.
At the time of cancellation Ares 1 had carried out a mostly successful test flight of its first stage ( there were issues, but not insurmountable ), and it is probable that if not cancelled Ares 1 would have flown manned missions by now, and Ares V would also have flown.
With SLS NASA has abandoned the idea of a smaller launcher to put the Orion spacecraft in orbit, unless they contract with SpaceX or ULA to make their launchers compatible with it ( unlikely ), so are stuck with needing an full SLS launch for every Orion mission
Of course SLS could save man-rating cost by launching the Orion unmanned, with the crew joining it once in orbit, but I can't see NASA wanting to do that.
NASA needs a big booster to send their manned craft away from the earth. That is not something determined on a whim. It is determined by Newton's laws.
If they ONLY intended to use Orion for earth orbit missions, then they could very well have made use of a lower energy and lower thrust rocket. In the Apollo era, that is what they did - Saturn IB for simple low earth orbit missions, Saturn V for missions to the moon.
In the current set up, Orion will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for non earth orbit missions. The low earth orbit realm has been handed over to the commercial companies Boeing, SpaceX and possible a couple of others. I am sure NASA would love to have been able to develop their own family of boosters themselves for all the missions they might envisage for Orion - but they weren't allowed to go down that route by their political masters.
As it is, the SLS is fairly well down the development and construction path now and it would be utterly stupid to cancel it at this late stage. Unfortunately, we do seem to have an utterly stupid administration ion the White House at the moment so it could very well get the axe.
If they ONLY intended to use Orion for earth orbit missions, then they could very well have made use of a lower energy and lower thrust rocket. In the Apollo era, that is what they did - Saturn IB for simple low earth orbit missions, Saturn V for missions to the moon.
In the current set up, Orion will be used mainly, if not exclusively, for non earth orbit missions. The low earth orbit realm has been handed over to the commercial companies Boeing, SpaceX and possible a couple of others. I am sure NASA would love to have been able to develop their own family of boosters themselves for all the missions they might envisage for Orion - but they weren't allowed to go down that route by their political masters.
As it is, the SLS is fairly well down the development and construction path now and it would be utterly stupid to cancel it at this late stage. Unfortunately, we do seem to have an utterly stupid administration ion the White House at the moment so it could very well get the axe.
Eric Mc said:
NASA needs a big booster to send their manned craft away from the earth. That is not something determined on a whim. It is determined by Newton's laws.
The point I and ( I think ) Rob were trying to make was that the Orion doesn't need to be on the SLS at the time of launch - it could be launched separately as in the Constellation plan, and docked with the deep-space components while in earth orbit. As it is, using the SLS to launch the Orion cuts into the available payload for the deep-space elements of the mission e.g. lunar lander, habitat, EUS fuel, etc.
Which is feasible - but developing two or multiple launcher systems for one mission may not be cost effective or practical and also increases the technical risks. I'm sure you know that Werner Von Braun favoured a twin launch method for his Apollo missions but was won around eventually to accept that a single launcher made more sense.
I know other organisations - such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have plans for mega boosters and I hope thy do get around to building them. But they are a way off at the moment. The SLS is actually being built right now. My only beef is that the funding is so low that everything is taking far too long. The main risk associated with SLS is political.
I know other organisations - such as SpaceX and Blue Origin have plans for mega boosters and I hope thy do get around to building them. But they are a way off at the moment. The SLS is actually being built right now. My only beef is that the funding is so low that everything is taking far too long. The main risk associated with SLS is political.
MartG said:
The worrying thing is that, if they do put a crew of the first flight and there is a problem and they are killed, in the current climate I think that would see the end of SLS
I think it would be the end of humans in space, at least for the USA. China would likely carry on.NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans was damaged by a tornado on 7th February. They're building major sections of the SLS & Orion here.
http://www.space.com/35682-nasa-reopens-tornado-da...
http://www.space.com/35682-nasa-reopens-tornado-da...
Any link?
It was always an option but only if the private sector failed or were slow to deliver.
Although I am very supportive of SpaceX and Dragon, I think they are finding that putting humans on top of their rockets creates a whole order of magnitude of difficulty.
And there have been delays and revisions to the Boeing Starliner/Atlas combination as well due to aerodynamic and structural issues where the capsule mates with the booster.
This stuff is not easy, even after 60 years.
It was always an option but only if the private sector failed or were slow to deliver.
Although I am very supportive of SpaceX and Dragon, I think they are finding that putting humans on top of their rockets creates a whole order of magnitude of difficulty.
And there have been delays and revisions to the Boeing Starliner/Atlas combination as well due to aerodynamic and structural issues where the capsule mates with the booster.
This stuff is not easy, even after 60 years.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff