 |
This artist concept shows NASA’s Space Launch System, or SLS, rolling to a launchpad at Kennedy Space Center at night. SLS will be the most powerful rocket in history, and the flexible, evolvable design of this advanced, heavy-lift launch vehicle will meet a variety of crew and cargo mission needs.
In addition to carrying the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, SLS will transfer important cargo, equipment and science experiments to deep space, providing the nation with a safe, affordable and sustainable means to expand our reach in the solar system. It will allow astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft to explore multiple deep-space destinations including an asteroid and ultimately Mars.
|
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Pic of the day.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
It's a hodge-podge collection of ex-shuttle parts (solid rocket boosters, main fuel tank), that simply has a capsule on the top instead of a space plane on the side. NASA has no real purpose in mind for it except to preserve the old shuttle production facilities (jobs) in key states, while talking out their rears about missions to Luna/Mars.
ReplyDeleteWhile they're futzing around with political objectives, SpaceX will cruise right by. With same-day reusable first stages and more capable capsules. All for a 100th or less of NASA's costs. When that happens, budget considerations will win out, and NASA will buy their launch services from SpaceX and other vendors.
SpaceX has proven capable in achieving LEO, but there current rockets just don't have the muscle to put significant (for human use, that is) payloads on Mars, Luna, EML1/2, SEL1/2, or just about anywhere else outside of near space. Considering that it took 119 metric tons to LEO just to put a short term habitation module for two people on the moon for a couple of days, with just enough dV in reserve to get them back to Terra, even the Falcon Heavy's capacity of fifty three metric tons to LEO is relatively puny for the missions Musk has planned. If you're planning a "Mars Colonial Transporter" and a base on Mars, even the SLS isn't large enough (I'm keeping my fingers crossed that someone will revisit the Nova concept someday). Of course, we could (and I hope we will) use propellant depots at LEO, EML-2, and LLO, along with a "mining base" on the lunar surface to convert ice into LH2 to refuel the stations, to "break up" the dV the actual launch vehicle must have, as well as Aldrin Cyclers to reduce the required mass, but in that case you'll need a heavy-lift vehicle to launch the infrastructure in the first place.
DeleteYou seem to treat concepts such as "same day reusability," and even spacecraft reusability in general, like it's some kind of foregone conclusion. SpaceX is serious about doing those things, and I have no doubt they've got very talented personnel, but you're vastly underestimating the complexity of putting concepts into practice. Their reusability scheme may end up working, or they may abandon it after experiencing overly high development costs, or it may end up actually increasing the cost per launch (remember when the Space Shuttle was supposed to be rapidly reusable and low cost?). Personally, I hope SpaceX is successful, but like I said, you're speaking of conceptual technology in the early prototype stage as if it's already being commercially used.
So, while I share your enthusiasm for SpaceX, I don't know if I'd proclaim them to be the kings of space travel just yet.
I wouldn't call them the king quite either, but I have to fully agree with SandWyrm here simply because SpaceX is the only company that's actually innovating.
DeleteSUCCESSFULLY innovating.
I wouldn't say they are the *only* ones who are innovating, or even successfully innovating -- United Launch Alliance's use of an isogrid structure on the Atlas V, their development of hybrid rocket motors, and NPO Energomash's development of the full-flow staged combustion cycle RD-180 engine are just three of the most important innovations conducted recently at companies outside of SpaceX. All three of these innovations have a wide variety of applications.
DeleteAlso, a note on the term "successfully": in engineering, "successfully" generally means "getting something to work following repeated failures." Case in point: SpaceX's Falcon 1 rocket had a failure rate of 60% (three out of five launches failed), their Falcon 9 rocket so far has a failure rate over six times higher than the average for U.S. rockets (just over 9% vs. 1.5%), several Falcon 9 launches which were counted as successes experienced engine failures, and both of the Falcon 9 Reusable landings attempted so far experienced issues which would have prevented them from being quickly reused -- in the first attempt, the landing legs were burned by engine exhaust, and in the second, the tank ruptured, which would have completely prevented any type of reusability.
Obviously, SpaceX is innovating, and obviously they are moving forward, but to act as if they are not failing, or that the presence of failure precludes success, is disingenuous. ANY innovation will involve repeated failures; it's a testament to the difficulty involved in engineering just about anything, especially an orbital rocket.
The biggest rocket successful launched is the Soviet Union's Energia rocket, which could have lifted off 220 tons to LEO with 6 boosters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia
ReplyDeleteToo bad this wonder of a rocket was scrapped after two successful launches following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet space shuttle turned into a restaurant.