NASA's Next Rocket

[spaceboy7441]

The moment we have been waiting painstakingly for the past few years has finally arrived. The replacement to the Space Shuttle and the new NASA rocket has been decided.

SLS (Space Launch System)
SD-HLV (Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle)



http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/06/managers-sls-announcement-after-sd-hlv-victory/

[Spaceguy5]

I think it's a shame that they're more or less just going to throw away all existing SSME's with this (as it's expendable).

[Admin]

I think it's a shame they keep anything "solid rocket fuel".

/Admin

[Spaceguy5]

Yeah, that too. I'm glad we've gone so long with few catastrophic accidents caused by solid rockets. I think it was crazy sending a man on them in the first place. At least Orion will have an escape system.

[uri_ba]

Solid rockets are much less complex then liquid. they only have two parts that can fail are structure and fuel.

on liquid you got, structure, fuel, pumps, pipes, turbines, injectors and so on..

the liquids on the other hand can be throttled

I thought SSMEs are too expensive to throw way on every launch. but I guess prices will go down considerably when you make more the half an engine a year.

[mborgia]

Solid fuel gives the most bang for the buck for the least amount of money.  The technology is proven and ready to fly.  STS-135 will provide the 219th and 220th consecutive incident free launches of the shuttle SRM, proving the still scary concept has been tamed within reason.  Any future human crew that flies on them will have a way out

I think I would have chosen the less expensive, flight proven and in production RS-68 engine over the RS-25 D (SSME) and RS-25 E.  Even the expendable version of the shuttle main engine has four times as many parts and is far more expensive. 

I think NASA was too scared off by those gut wrenching fireballs that Delta IV belches out every time it flies.

[Cras]

The DIRECT project I thought was a little misguided when they wanted to keep the SRBs.  Cool idea to work with the ET, but solid fuel should be a thing of the past.  It has only one good benefit, and that is they can be built and stored for a very long time, where the ET every time the launch is scrubbed has to be de-tanked, which leads to fuel loss in the process, and massive stress on the ET, look at STS-133 and 132 and all the damage that came out of the de-tanking.

And I agree that ditching the Shuttle mains is a dumb dumb idea.  The thing that made the shuttle great was so much of it was reused, which is the future.  Can't be a space faring race and throw away your space ship after each use. 

But that reusability is what made Shuttle launches so darn expensive.  To keep a ship of that size and complexity running after all those re-entries is hard to do.  This new project having more one use components is supposed to dramatically lower the cost of launches,which should allow NASA to get closer to the launch schedules of the 1980s rather than the 2000s.
 But with modern technologies, it sure would have been nice to see a Shuttle 2.  With out the inteference of the DoD and their high payload demands, electronic actuators so you can ditch the hydraulics, a little more elegant cooling system, and of course a far more reliable thermal contorl system.

But this will have to do...for now.  It is still better than the Soyuz   

[Moonwalker]

The moment I am personally waiting for did not yet arrive. It is many years away. NASA has decided many proposals in the past, let alone Constellation. If they will be able to stay within the budget limits, and if politicians are willing to pay more than expected once again, NASA will have to prove it one more time before there is a moment I am wayting for (a new system, cheaper and more reliable than STS, standing on a mobile launcher ready for launch)

For now I expect to get new wine in old wineskins...

[Moonwalker]

...and the new wine I was expecting has arrived in the old wineskins:

Preliminary NASA plan shows Evolved SLS vehicle is 21 years away

A new schedule, created by NASA, has provided a “preliminary, budget restricted” manifest which places the first flight of the fully evolved Space Launch System (SLS) in the year 2032. The information includes details on the chosen configuration and hardware, but provides a depressing schedule, with a flight rate of just one mission per year, after a staggered opening which results in SLS-2 waiting until 2021 to launch.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/07/preliminary-nasa-evolved-sls-vehicle-21-years-away/

This thing also will never see any daylight

[Forrest White]

Rocket building is one of the most developing industries nowadays. The space launch company makes a contribution to space exploration - today we have different launch vehicles, satellites, the third stage for cargo delivery to Leo orbit, and much more.

[SpaceJac37]

Rocket building is one of the most developing industries nowadays. The space launch company makes a contribution to space exploration - today we have different launch vehicles, satellites, the third stage for cargo delivery to Leo orbit, and much more.

Wow, I see I found a new friend here. I thought I wouldn't meet a like-minded person on this forum. All people I know are insecure about fast-growing companies because they think no one besides NASA and SpaceX can invent new technology and develop it. Where did you hear about Skyrora first? I browsed my newsfeed and saw an article with a heading like "A private space company UK can boast of," or something like that. The United Kingdom and space seemed two opposed to me, so I decided to dive into this topic. It was a good decision because I found out many amazing things about Skyrora, its plans, and the technologies it uses.