The US Space Program

[Ian]

Cool news:

NASA Unveils Next Generation 'Monster' Space Rocket

If things go without a hitch, NASA said its newly unveiled Space Launch System could take its first manned test flight in 2017.

The new rocket design looks a lot like the Apollo era rockets that took American astronauts to the moon, but NASA said the new rocket is much more powerful than any other rocket they've made before and in conjunction with the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, already in development, it could set up astronauts for deep space exploration. The SLS will be NASA's first exploration-class vehicle since the Saturn V took astronauts to the moon.

"We're investing in technologies to live and work in space, and it sets the stage for visiting asteroids and Mars," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said at a news conference.

At the unveiling of the plans, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) called it a "monster rocket."

According to the AP, Nelson put the cost of the program at $18 billion over the next five years.

"Will it be tough times going forward? Of course it is," Nelson said at the press conference. "We are in an era in which we have to do more with less — all across the board — and the competition for the available dollars will be fierce. But what we have here now are the realistic costs that have been scrubbed by an outside, independent third party."

The Houston Chronicle's SciGuy compares this new rocket to the old ones:

... The new space launch system will be much bigger and far more powerful. It will be able, initially, to lift as much as [154,000] pounds of cargo into space, nearly three times as much as the space shuttle, which had a capacity for about 50,000 pounds.

This is enough to lift space capsules, astronauts and the supplies they will need for voyages to the moon and possibly beyond.

The announcement comes after weeks of wrangling between the U.S. Senate and NASA and the White House. In the end the Senate seems to have gotten what it wanted, an affordable heavy lift system ready to fly by 2017.

"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, kids today can now dream of one day walking on Mars," Bolden said in a press release.

NASA has a very technical description of the rockets, but the big thing to remember is that this new rocket marks a return to liquid technology:

The SLS rocket will incorporate technological investments from the Space Shuttle program and the Constellation program in order to take advantage of proven hardware and cutting-edge tooling and manufacturing technology that will significantly reduce development and operations costs. It will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, which will include the RS-25D/E from the Space Shuttle program for the core stage and the J-2X engine for the upper stage. SLS will also use solid rocket boosters for the initial development flights, while follow-on boosters will be competed based on performance requirements and affordability considerations. The SLS will have an initial lift capacity of 70 metric tons (mT) and will be evolvable to 130 mT. The first developmental flight, or mission, is targeted for the end of 2017.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/201 ... c=fb&cc=fp

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes - that's a nice rocket. There are scheduled plans for trips "around" the Moon. Not sure why we can't go back to the Moon....

Now let's see what they plan to use it for.

[Clinton Huxley]

Are you happy now, CES? It's a big fuck-off rocket.

[Robert_S]

Are you happy now, CES? It's a big fuck-off rocket.

But the big long rocket has to come in contact with something nice and round, like a moon or something, or else it's just not quite satisfying.

[Clinton Huxley]

Are you happy now, CES? It's a big fuck-off rocket.

But the big long rocket has to come in contact with something nice and round, like a moon or something, or else it's just not quite satisfying.

I blame Obama

[Ian]

Yes - that's a nice rocket. There are scheduled plans for trips "around" the Moon. Not sure why we can't go back to the Moon....

Now let's see what they plan to use it for.

The word you're looking for is "Mars".

[Horwood Beer-Master]

Are you happy now, CES? It's a big fuck-off rocket.

But the big long rocket has to come in contact with something nice and round, like a moon or something, or else it's just not quite satisfying.

I blame Obama

So do I. No, really.

[Robert_S]

Yes - that's a nice rocket. There are scheduled plans for trips "around" the Moon. Not sure why we can't go back to the Moon....

Now let's see what they plan to use it for.

The word you're looking for is "Mars".

The ginger planet!

I'd be down with that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Are you happy now, CES? It's a big fuck-off rocket.

Nope. A heavy lift rocket is for things like Moon missions. I won't be happy until we're going back to the Moon. I think it's not likely that we'll send men to Mars before we get some real practice dealing with the moon. The Moon is very far away and it takes 3-4 days for manned missions to get there, and a similar time to get back, plus the time spent on and around the Moon. So, short missions will be weeks, and it would take practice to get up to months long missions to the Moon.

A Mars trip will likely take an absolute bare minimum of 6 months, and more likely 7 or 8 months. Just to get there.

I simply can not get around the idea of skipping the Moon now, and just barging ahead with a Mars trip. The logistics and dangers are too great.

I stand by my opinion that Obama was using smooth-talk to cancel the Constellation program while pretending to "expand" the horizons of NASA. It was brilliant. Throw a bunch of circus seals in the media some fish, and they all clap wildly and hoot. He just said, "look, I'm not cancelling anything really....I'm really expanding! Sure, we'll cancel the moon, but I will give you, ladies and gentlemen, drum roll please...... wait for it...... the Solar System!" - so, all the reporters cheer that he's canceling a program and doing something even bigger and bolder....and then nobody bothers to follow up with...."umm...Mr. President...ummm...just one thing...would you mind giving us a rundown of your actual plans? And, those new bigger, and bolder, missions...have they started development yet?"

Of course not.... because it was all CRAP! Just a big pile of shit! He canceled the Moon program because manned space programs are not important to him. Leave it for the next administration. He's too busy giving half a billion dollars at a time to "Solardyne" and other fraudsters....

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes - that's a nice rocket. There are scheduled plans for trips "around" the Moon. Not sure why we can't go back to the Moon....

Now let's see what they plan to use it for.

The word you're looking for is "Mars".

Ohhh! Wow!

Awesome!

The Mars program has started! Yes!

Let's see ...hang on sec...let me head over to the NASA website.... hold on.... huh...not there... Manned Mars mission by 2030-ish? Huh...not there at all...nothing...

Let me checks the googles....let's see -- Hundred Year Starship pipe dream....not going anywhere.

Hmmm...President's announcement in April 2010 that he wants to go to Mars -- anything since then? Wait...what's that? I hear...wait...crickets.

Oh, the Administration didn't want to even start work on the heavy lift rocket until 2015 -- just in time for him to be guaranteed leaving the white house. Congress gave NASA some funding to work on it, though. But, nobody is working on planning a Mars Mission.

And, the idea of skipping the Moon, and just saying - fuck it - let's just send astronauts to Mars for multi-year missions -- it's ridiculous. The idea has been criticized by ever astronaut who has spoken out about it. Everybody using a bit of common sense knows you have to have people spend 6 months and year in space here, close to Earth, before you send them 30 to 100 million miles for a minimum of a year -- just traveling back and forth to Mars is a MINIMUM of a year, plus the time you have to wait for launch windows.

[Ian]

What's the big deal about "skipping the moon"? We've BEEN to the moon. Forty years ago. We planted the flag, brought back rocks and even drove a little car around on it. What else do you want to see done on the moon, establish a full-on base there before considering a manned mission to Mars? If so, to what end? And who cares how long the trip to Mars takes, so long as it can be done and there is a trip? Is your point that NASA shouldn't set that as a goal because it seems difficult now? Reminder: NASA's been to Mars before, just not with astronauts. So what's your objection to this rocket, exactly? That NASA designed this huge thing but you think they're never actually going to do anything with it? Or that they shouldn't consider long missions, because it looks tough?

[mistermack]

I have to agree with Coito.
Mars is a deliberate distraction. Everyone reading this thread will be long dead before people visit Mars.
And for good reason, because Mars is of very little value to humans. Curiosity value, yes, but not practical value.

Mars is extremely difficult to land on softly. It has substantial gravity, and hardly any atmosphere.
Returning to Earth is easy in comparison. The atmosphere does most of the work of scrubbing off speed. And parachutes or wings do the rest.

Atmospheric drag and parachutes don't do a lot on Mars, so you need BIG retro rockets to slow the descent, and advanced control to choose a site and land upright. And because it's so far away, you can't control it from Earth.
Also, because it's so far away, you need to travel there and back at very high speeds, which means LOADS of fuel to accelerate, and the same amount to slow down, as well as the large amount of fuel to land and take off.

The Moon is an absolute doddle compared to Mars.

[Clinton Huxley]

Wonder if NASA will go for this...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14986217

[Coito ergo sum]

What's the big deal about "skipping the moon"? We've BEEN to the moon. Forty years ago. We planted the flag, brought back rocks and even drove a little car around on it. What else do you want to see done on the moon, establish a full-on base there before considering a manned mission to Mars? If so, to what end? And who cares how long the trip to Mars takes, so long as it can be done and there is a trip? Is your point that NASA shouldn't set that as a goal because it seems difficult now? Reminder: NASA's been to Mars before, just not with astronauts. So what's your objection to this rocket, exactly? That NASA designed this huge thing but you think they're never actually going to do anything with it? Or that they shouldn't consider long missions, because it looks tough?

Well, Mistermack is correct.

What's the big deal? Well, I would add that it's a big deal because we have lost the know-how to go to the Moon, and the Moon is very close to us, and Mars is many times farther away. Astronauts can get to the Moon and land on it in a few days, whereas Mars will take months.

We need to gain expertise about going to the Moon before we go to Mars.

What else do I want to see done on the Moon? Exploration and potential use of its resources. Development of a Moon base, such that we would have a space station near the Earth and a Moon base on the Moon and be able to travel routinely between the two. From there, I'd like to see Mars missions launched.

I do not want a full scale base before "considering" a manned mission to Mars. A full scale base on the Moon is pretty much a prerequisite for going to Mars because we are going to have to build a base or transport a base to put on Mars. Without ever having had a base on the surface of another world, it is foolhardy to pick Mars as the experimental ground.

Mars ought to be the goal, yes (or a goal, that is). However, right now it isn't a goal, it's an empty statement. It is not feasible to go to Mars without further Moon missions as stepping stones, and practice developing a base on the nearby Moon as a stepping stone to putting a base on Mars too.

I have no objection to the rocket at all.

And, having seen my posts on this topic, your questions about whether it "looks tough" are disingenuous. Of course it's tough, and the fact that it's tough not a reason to abandon the mission, it's one of the reasons to go. We choose to go, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

Let me try to rephrase what I have already said about Obama's Mars mission: There isn't one. He's full of shit. He canceled the Moon program and the Moon base at Clavius crater because it's not important to him. He had to figure a way to take the wind out of any criticism, so he spewed some empty words about giving up the Moon but giving us the solar system. That was 18 months ago almost, and since then he's said nothing, and NASA does not now have a manned Mars program. To complete a Mars program by 2030, we would have to start yesterday, not several years from now, and have you heard of any announced plan? Any budget? Of course not. It was just words used so that people wouldn't say "he canceled manned space flight" -- he found a way for folks to say, "he's up to bigger and bolder things..." -- they leave out the part of asking for any details, and nobody followed up to ask where the program is.

What is NASA doing now? There are some remaining unmanned missions, and much of its budget has been shifted to other more Earthly pursuits. There is no Mars mission, and there won't be until another President sets that ball rolling.

And, again, any Mars program must begin with nearer-Earth practice and repeat missions. We can't simply go to Mars. And the fact that it's been nearly 40 years since we last rocketed to the Moon is a bad thing, not a good thing. The people that knew how it was done are now retired or dead. We had the last opportunity to avail ourselves of living Moon mission guys. We fucked ourselves out of their expertise.

[Robert_S]

Sorry I'm not up on my lunar geography, is there anything on it that we know of that can be made into fuel?