Space Launch System - Orion
Discussion
As we have a dedicated SpaceX thread, perhaps we should have a dedicated one to cover the (slow) progress of the Space Launch System (SLS).
On June 28, Orbital ATK will be conducting the second ground test of the enhanced Solid Rocket Booster that will be part of the SLS.
http://www.orbitalatk.com/rocket-test/
On June 28, Orbital ATK will be conducting the second ground test of the enhanced Solid Rocket Booster that will be part of the SLS.
http://www.orbitalatk.com/rocket-test/
NASA (or whoever) needs a 100 ton to LEO capability as soon as possible. It's what was possible with the Saturn V and if we intend to make any practical advances on our capabilities within the Solar System, this is what is needed.
That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
That's why I want SLS to succeed - just to get that capability back.
Once we can hoist 100 tons into LEO, all sorts of possibilities open up.
I think the good thing about the SLS is that it revives a lost capability. Once they have it, all sorts of projects can be supported by it - both manned and unmanned.
The fact that it might make use of previous era technology is not a big issue as far as I am concerned. All the best and most reliable rocket systems are based on evolved older technologies. That's the path the Russians have followed fairly successfully.
The fact that it might make use of previous era technology is not a big issue as far as I am concerned. All the best and most reliable rocket systems are based on evolved older technologies. That's the path the Russians have followed fairly successfully.
The first stage of Sea Dragon had a proposed thrust of 80 million pounds of thrust (over 10 times more powerful than a Saturn V). The shock waves emanating from the rocket would literally kill any sea or bird life for a number of miles around the launch position. Indeed, the whole point of the sea launch idea was because launching such a huge rocket from land would have such a massive impact on the surrounding areas.
And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
And that was as long as the rocket behaved itself. If it blew up it would have had the equivalent explosive power of a large atomic bomb.
Flooble said:
I think that the study showed it would create a gas bubble in the water which would turn the surrounding water into a sound-absorbing foam, so as long as a few square miles was cleared out with some active sonar pings the marine life would probably be largely safe. Particularly if you launched from somewhere with minimal life anyway - there are dead zones conveniently along the equator: http://phys.org/news/2015-04-ocean-dead-zones-disa...
Do the military still drop depth charges on exercise? Or set off those massive torpedoes the russians used to have (big enough to take out a Typhoon class double-hulled sub?)
Not sure about the bird life, but probably not going to be that much worse than an airliner and there aren't that many birds out in the middle of the ocean surely? I haven't seen pigeons fitted with long range tanks or eagles carrying out air-to-air refuelling
All a bit speculative, I think.Do the military still drop depth charges on exercise? Or set off those massive torpedoes the russians used to have (big enough to take out a Typhoon class double-hulled sub?)
Not sure about the bird life, but probably not going to be that much worse than an airliner and there aren't that many birds out in the middle of the ocean surely? I haven't seen pigeons fitted with long range tanks or eagles carrying out air-to-air refuelling
At the time these studies were made, care for the environment was pretty low on the agenda. I think we would be a little bit more cautious now.
As it was, the idea never got very far and I don't think we will ever see anything on this scale ever being operated off earth. However, it might be a useful concept for operating from other planetary and moon locations.
Maybe the old stand is just getting old and would need a massive rebuild and refit to make it appropriate for modern testing. It's over 50 years old now.
Also, looking at 500F in the stand, I assume they hoisted in each stage and stacked the whole thing in the stand itself (like it was a mini-VAB). I bet they wouldn't be able to manoeuver the whole SLS core section into the old stand.
Also, looking at 500F in the stand, I assume they hoisted in each stage and stacked the whole thing in the stand itself (like it was a mini-VAB). I bet they wouldn't be able to manoeuver the whole SLS core section into the old stand.
If they want to send Orion out beyond the moon (which they do) they need a booster capable of putting 100 tons into earth orbit or sending 30 tons beyond earth orbit. SLS is designed to do that.
I don't think anybody else has a booster anywhere near as advanced in planning and construction with that capacity at the moment.
I don't think anybody else has a booster anywhere near as advanced in planning and construction with that capacity at the moment.
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.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff