Year of the Comet
Comet C/2011 L4 (PANSTARRS)

PANSTARRS information

Comet C/2012 S1 (ISON)

ISON information

Astronomy News
E-mail Article to a FriendPrint ArticleBookmark and Share

NASA announces design for new deep space exploration system

The new heavy-lift rocket will take humans far beyond Earth.
By NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C. Published: September 15, 2011
SLS-launch
Artist concept of SLS launching. Credit: NASA
NASA has selected the design of a new Space Launch System (SLS) that will take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before, create high-quality jobs here at home, and provide the cornerstone for America's future human space exploration efforts.

This new heavy-lift rocket — in combination with a crew capsule already under development, increased support for the commercialization of astronaut travel to low Earth orbit, an extension of activities on the International Space Station until at least 2020, and a fresh focus on new technologies — is key to implementing the plan laid out by President Obama and Congress. The booster will be America's most powerful since the Saturn V rocket that carried Apollo astronauts to the Moon and will launch humans to places no one has gone before.

"This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space, and inspire millions around the world," said Charles Bolden from NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow's explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars."

This launch vehicle decision is the culmination of a months-long, comprehensive review of potential designs to ensure the nation gets a rocket that is not only powerful, but also evolvable so it can be adapted to different missions as opportunities arise and new technologies are developed.

"Having settled on a new and powerful heavy-lift launch architecture, NASA can now move ahead with building that rocket and the next-generation vehicles and technologies needed for an ambitious program of crewed missions in deep space," said John P. Holdren, assistant to the President for Science and Technology. "I'm excited about NASA's new path forward and about its promise for continuing American leadership in human space exploration."

The SLS will carry human crews beyond low Earth orbit in a capsule named the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle. The rocket will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel system, where RS-25D/E engines will provide the core propulsion, and the J2X engine is planned for use in the upper stage. There will be a competition to develop the boosters based on performance requirements.

The decision to go with the same fuel system for the core and the upper stage was based on a NASA analysis demonstrating that use of common components can reduce costs and increase flexibility. The heavy-lift rocket's early flights will be capable of lifting 77 to 110 tons before evolving to a lift capacity of 143 tons.

The early developmental flights may take advantage of existing solid boosters and other existing hardware. These flights will enable NASA to reduce developmental risk, drive innovation within the agency and private industry, and accomplish early exploration objectives.

"NASA has been making steady progress toward realizing the president's goal of deep space exploration while doing so in a more affordable way," said Lori Garver from NASA Headquarters. "We have been driving down the costs on the Space Launch System and Orion contracts by adopting new ways of doing business and project hundreds of millions of dollars of savings each year."

NASA elected to initiate a competition for the booster stage based on performance parameters rather than on the type of propellant because of the need for flexibility. The specific acquisition strategy for procuring the core stage, booster stage, and upper stage is being developed and will be announced at a later time.

Find us on FacebookFind us on Twitter
User Comments
Be the first to leave your comment below!

Only registered members of Astronomy.com are allowed to comment on this article. Registration is FREE and only takes a couple minutes.

Register Today!
 
4 stars
KEN HOLTGREWE from TEXAS said:
Rockets are cool, but they're old technology. We need innovation in new propulsion systems -- like inertial propulsion. They say it's against the laws of physics, but there are always loopholes!
4 stars
RICHARD MCCONNELL said:
Let us hope that the US government can stick with this project through the many years to completion, instead of simply axing it at the next change of aministration, as happened with the Constellation programme. The idea that private enterprise can do this is somewhat naive, with no immediate signs of profit in view, perhaps for decades, and with the vast amounts of up-front investment required.
4 stars
CHRIS R BAKER from CALIFORNIA said:
None of this would be needed now if we had stuck to the space planes and evolved them from the X-15 that was nearly a space plane. The Race To the Moon was a horrible dead end and now this is more of the same. The space shuttle could have been but wasn't a truly reusable craft due to budget cuts that forced capability cuts and cost increases. This is all stupid. But if it's the best we can do then fine, go ahead.
ENRIQUE ROYON said:
comparto la nota anterior
BILL CHENNAULT from KANSAS said:
I sent the following letter (e-mail) to Space X . . .


NASA’s proposed new rocket is wrong for America and wrong for space exploration. NASA should be a freight customer of Space X (and competitors), lifting construction supplies and equipment to low-Earth orbit for the construction of mission specific transfer vehicles. A single, huge, multi-stage launch vehicle is a single, huge, multi-stage point of failure. Incremental launches will ensure mission success by lowering mission killing single point launch failures to zero. Eventually, NASA would be one of multiple customers per launch, thereby reducing costs to the public at a time wherein budgets are of paramount importance.

No matter the planned lift of a single-mission launch vehicle, the mission is automatically limited. Construction in orbit will not only promote our vital national interests, but will allow the development of the technology necessary in the private sector to ensure America’s future in space through commercialization. Space X is poised for such an endeavor. Space X is poised to lead America—and then the world—into the real age of space exploration, development, and commercialization.

The current administration is stressing government cooperation with private space ventures. What better way to promote the development of private space ventures than to follow this method?

Talk to those with influence. Get us on the right trajectory. Thanks for listening.

Bill Chennault
5 stars
BILL SIMPSON from LOUISIANA said:
With the US being $14,000,000,000,000 in debt, and with another recession starting soon, Congress will never actually authorize enough money to build more than a couple of these rockets, if that. Thankfully, we have the very capable Elon Musk, creator of SpaceX, to actually get some big rockets built. Finally, to quote Kyle Bass, one of the few people who warned Wall Street about the danger of sub-prime loans, years before the crash (and made a billion dollars betting against the bad debt when they didn't listen. Watch 'House of Cards' on CNBC by David Faber for the whole story.) when speaking about European bank stocks and debt , "A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money." So I wouldn't count on seeing this rocket flying anytime soon. But I hope I'm wrong, because the biggest part of the new rocket will probably be built right across Lake Pontchartrain from Slidell at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans. The Corps of Engineers just finished an enormous flood wall to protect the plant from hurricane storm surges. It is 25 feet tall and cost $1,200,000,000. You cab see it on Google Earth, the NASA plant too. See if you can find the first stage of the Saturn V Moon Rocket on display near the plant. Every one of them was built inside that plant which was originally built during WW II. During the Cold War Space Race, 12,000 people worked there. Every external tank for the Space Shuttles was also built there. An airliner hit a hail storm and landed next to the levee on the thin strip of dirt between the levee and a dainage canal. You talk about lucky! They took off from the abandoned runway behind the plant a few days later. The 737 couldn't make to Lakefront Airport, or to Louis Armstrong International because the hail and rain had shut down the engines at low altitude as it was approaching Louis Armstrong in Kenner, LA to land. Those were some lucky people. Most water landings of passenger jets don't turn out like that one on the Hudson River in New York City.
4 stars
RYAN FLYNN said:
This is the way manned space exploration should have progressed from the days of Apollo. While the Space Shuttle was an amazing machine, it would have been better served had we had more experience with human space exploration prior to its construction, and perhaps have had more than the (originally) 4 Shuttles built, with pairs of Shuttles set up for specialized types of missions rather than a "modify it until it can do anything we want" approach. While it was invaluable to the construction of ISS, breaking away from the Von Braun Paradigm of human spaceflight progression hamstrung the human exploration of our solar system. I for one am glad that we are seeing a return to the familiar capsule-based modular vehicles and launch systems that disappeared quite suddenly after Apollo, though we have improved upon them tenfold in terms of reliability and automation. I still think that a four-stage booster would be more efficient than a three-stage one in the long run, as at least the first 2 stages could be made entirely reusable, but this may prove to be more efficient in terms of cost versus performance overall. I just hope that the core booster stage can be made somewhat reusable to preclude having to built a whole new vehicle from the ground up for each launch, which would help keep the costs low. A rocket is simpler to refurbish than a Space Shuttle, especially if it is designed with that in mind at the outset.
SEARCH SITE
Subscriber Only Access
Subscriber Only Content
Look for this icon. This denotes premium subscriber content. Learn more »
Become a Member of Astronomy.com
Register today for access to more valuable resource information.
Interact in our forums, comment on articles, receive our newsletter and much more!
Not a member?
Subscriber and Member Login
Password
Remember me