More

NASA Space Launch System: Giant, Next-Gen Rocket May Take Us To Mars

Nasa Space Launch System

SETH BORENSTEIN   09/14/11 08:02 PM ET   AP

WASHINGTON — To soar far away from Earth and even on to Mars, NASA has dreamed up the world's most powerful rocket, a behemoth that borrows from the workhorse liquid-fuel rockets that sent Apollo missions into space four decades ago.

But with a price tag that some estimate at $35 billion, it may not fly with Congress.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden and several members of Congress on Wednesday unveiled the Obama administration's much-delayed general plans for its rocket design, called the Space Launch System. The multibillion-dollar program would carry astronauts in a capsule on top, and the first mission would be 10 years off if all goes as planned. Unmanned test launches are expected from Cape Canaveral, Fla., in six years.

Calling it the "largest, most powerful rocket built," NASA's exploration and operations chief, William Gerstenmaier, said the rocket will be tough to construct. But when NASA does it, "we'll have a capability to go beyond low-Earth orbit like no other nation does here on Earth," he said in a telephone briefing Wednesday.

The rocket resembles those NASA relied on before the space shuttle, but even its smallest early prototype will have 10 percent more thrust than the Saturn V that propelled Apollo astronauts to the moon. When it is built to its fuller size, it will be 20 percent more powerful, Gerstenmaier said. That bigger version will have the horsepower of 208,000 Corvette engines.

NASA is trying to remain flexible on where it wants to go and when. The space agency is aiming for a nearby asteroid around 2025 and then on to Mars in the 2030s. There could even be a short hop to the moon, but not as a main goal. All those targets require lots of brute force to escape Earth's orbit, something astronauts have not done since 1972.

The far-from-finalized price tag may be too steep given federal budget constraints.

"Will it be tough times going forward? Of course it is," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said in a separate news 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" verified by independent experts.

Although five senators of both parties who are leaders in science issues praised the plan in a joint press release, outside experts are skeptical that Congress will agree to such a big spending project.

"In the current political environment, new spending is probably the most taboo thing in politics," said Stan Collender, a former Democratic congressional budget analyst. He put the odds of this getting congressional approval at "no better than 50-50 this year. There are going to be a lot of questions asking what kind of commitment we're going to be making here. You can find yourself with a rocket that no one wants to fire."

Nelson puts the cost of the program at about $18 billion over the next five years. But that estimate is mostly for development and design through the first test flight in 2017, and doesn't include production of later rockets, Gerstenmaier said. Gerstenmaier wouldn't give a total estimate, but it is almost double that, according to senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to make the announcement.

University of Texas engineering professor Hans Mark, a former NASA deputy chief and frequent critic of recent space agency plans, said money and where the rocket is going are likely to be bigger problems than technical engineering issues. He said that in some ways, it sounds like NASA is melding the best of space shuttle and Apollo technologies.

The rocket is similar to Apollo not only in size and shape, but in its reliance on liquid fuel. The winged, reusable and recently retired space shuttles sat on top of a giant liquid fuel tank, but relied heavily on twin solid rocket boosters to get off the ground.

NASA figures it will be building and launching about one rocket a year for about 15 years or more in the 2020s and 2030s, according to the senior officials. The idea is to launch its first unmanned test flight in 2017 and send up the first crew in 2021, followed by the asteroid and Mars missions.

At first, the 320-foot-tall rockets will be able to carry 77 to 110 tons, which would include the six-person Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle capsule and more. The crew capsule, which is now being built, has at least twice as much space as the old Apollo capsules, which could only fit three astronauts, said NASA spokesman Michael Braukus.

Eventually the rocket will grow to 400 feet tall, weigh 3,250 tons and be able to carry another 143 tons into space, maybe even 165 tons, the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said. By comparison, the long-dormant Saturn V booster that sent men to the moon was able to lift 130 tons.

The plans dwarf the rumbling liftoff power of the space shuttle, which could haul just 27 tons. The biggest current unmanned rocket can carry about 25 tons.

Some of the design elements, the deadline and the requirement for such a rocket were dictated by Congress. Senators were talking about issuing subpoenas to NASA because they felt the space agency was taking too long in coming up with the design, but NASA officials said they just wanted to get all the details right before unveiling the plan.

The giant rocket will be powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel. During the initial test flights, it will use solid rocket boosters designed for the shuttle strapped on its outside, and will have shuttle main engines powering it on the inside. But soon after that the solid rocket boosters will be replaced with new boosters that should have advanced technology and may be either liquid or solid.

NASA hopes to free up money for the rocket by turning over the launching of astronauts to the International Space Station, which orbits the Earth, to private companies and just rent spaces for astronauts like a giant taxi service. NASA officials aren't sure how much they'll save because it depends on how much the firms will charge and when they will start flying.

Stanford University engineering professor Scott Hubbard worries that NASA has a history of spending far more than initially proposed – the space shuttle cost about twice what it was supposed to – and that this new rocket system will drain money from other NASA missions. NASA already has major financial overruns with the still-under-construction, multibillion-dollar replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope.

___

AP Aerospace Writer Marcia Dunn contributed from Cape Canaveral, Fla.

___

Online:

NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/

FOLLOW HUFFPOST TECH

WASHINGTON — To soar far away from Earth and even on to Mars, NASA has dreamed up the world's most powerful rocket, a behemoth that borrows from the workhorse liquid-fuel rockets that sent Apoll...
WASHINGTON — To soar far away from Earth and even on to Mars, NASA has dreamed up the world's most powerful rocket, a behemoth that borrows from the workhorse liquid-fuel rockets that sent Apoll...
Filed by Catharine Smith  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 33
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bruce Negron
"We are each responsible for all of our experience
01:36 PM on 09/21/2011
The space race will come down to private corporations. Does it really cost that much to build the parts or is this over inflated like the real cost of making an I-pad vs what it sells for?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bobbie Smithfield
the world would be better if i were in charge
08:35 PM on 09/14/2011
with republican contempt of actual science, i don't give this project much chance at funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Zenith1959
Buying Things=Job Creator
04:26 PM on 09/14/2011
I live in the northwest corner of the US, as far from Florida as you can be in the lower 48. That being said, I would really like to see a large rocket launch someday, but probably wont get to.
02:57 PM on 09/14/2011
A quick correction: the solid rocket boosters will have 5 segments, as opposed to the space shuttle's 4-segment boosters; there will only be 2 boosters on the SLS, not 5.
It won't be tough to construct, initially, using existing boosters, liquid engines, and core tank. The upper stage will be all-new, but one selling point to congress was the ability of this design to use the existing infrastructure (i.e. companies) that built most of the shuttle's disposable hardware.
To save development time and money, they're making the boosters disposable (the shuttle's were re-usable) and throwing away the main engines (the shuttle kept them and brought them home) but the idea is to get the thing flying and then worry about the details. It's modular, so as new engines, boosters, and capsules become available they can be incorporated into the existing baseline. The most complicated part of the new design is the new avionics package, which must be developed from the ground up.
02:54 PM on 09/14/2011
10 years? 10 years?! We had the tech to go to Mars and beyond years ago and now we must wait 10 more years? Frak!!!!
04:23 PM on 09/14/2011
The technology is not the problem. The SLS is just about as close as it gets to the most trivial reconfiguration of the Shuttle stack (STS) as an inline expendable launch vehicle.There's not much in the way of new technology.

The problem is all about cost structures and execution.

It costs NASA billions of dollars a year just to make their contractual pension fund contributions to the retirees who worked for contractors on past programs such as Shuttle and Apollo. NASA has absurdly high fixed costs and legacy obligations that they must pay before they can even think about new programs and mission objectives. The past is a financial albatross around NASA's neck.

SLS will be NASA's first expendable launch vehicle program since Saturn V in the 1960s. The Air Force has managed some very successful ELV programs (e.g. Delta II and Atlas V) and some fairly successful but costly ELV programs (e.g. Titan IV and Delta IV), but NASA doesn't have that kind of experience. Their LV development skill set is really rusty. They have trouble executing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mherrera
Indigenous Troublemaker
02:51 PM on 09/14/2011
NASA is still planning for the future based on dreams of the past. It's all about geosynchronous stuff like communications satellites, not seeing how many billion dollars you can spend to put humans on another planet for no purpose other than to say you did. The Russians beat us to the moon with a robot and correctly said "There. Done." But we had to put humans there to drive a dune buggy. You can do that near Yuma, AZ and only be a few minutes from a good bar. NASA is one example of where government should not be in business. Space needs profit motive to direct it into ventures which make sense, not some bureaucrat's dream of a 20 year escalating budget when 1 in 6 Americans is living in poverty.
02:20 PM on 09/14/2011
At the launch schedule and rate indicated, SpaceX will have a moon base and a McDonald's ready and waiting for the first NASA landings.

"Hey there, welcome to the Moon! Have a Big Mac!"
02:59 PM on 09/14/2011
It won't be a McDonalds, it'll be a cheese shop.
(if you get this one, you're a space geek)
03:52 PM on 09/14/2011
Yeah, that's a pretty good reference for identifying space geeks.

A lot of other space geeks were guessing that the surprise payload on the first SpaceX Dragon flight would be some sort of live animal, but that seemed far-fetched given its potential to be more of a PR gaffe. I knew it would be something inanimate, perhaps an inanimate carbon rod. But it turned out that although I zeroed in on a pop-culture reference, I had the wrong one.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:11 PM on 09/14/2011
The money needs to go on new propulsion designs. This type will get us nowhere fast. We are simply reverting back to 1969. NASA is so yesterday. What happened to the forward think NASA I use to respect? Reagan?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
J242
Micro-bio? We don't need no stinkin' micro-bio!
02:51 PM on 09/14/2011
What happened to them? Budget cuts and financial woes due to no leaders since the 60s actively supporting them and society itself not supporting them. The wonder and magic has gone out of it due to neglect. Such a sad thing. :(
04:02 PM on 09/14/2011
There's not much in the way of new propulsion concepts for earth orbit launch vehicles. There are other options for in-space vehicles, such as solar-electric or nuclear-thermal propulsion schemes, but the T/W ratios on those powerplants are way too low for use inside the earth's gravity well.

We're going to be using hydrogen or hydrocarbon fuels with liquid oxygen for the foreseeable future. The key is to get the production rates up so that the unit costs go down. SpaceX is tooling up their factory in CA to produce up to 450 liquid rocket engines per year, which is more than the entire world's combined production rate today. That's the way we shift the economic curve.

The only other LV propulsion concept that makes any sense to me is the combined-cycle liquid hydrogen precooled turborocket engine (SABRE) for the proposed Skylon SSTO HTHL vehicle. This vehicle is designed to reach Mach 5.2 at 85,000 feet on a shallow trajectory using the atmosphere for oxidizer, then close the intake and switch to onboard liquid oxygen in a more conventional staged combustion cycle rocket mode for the exo-atmospheric acceleration to orbital velocity.
02:02 PM on 09/14/2011
It's much better to have aerospace engineers creating something that will be very useful to humanity than it is to have them collecting unemployment benefits.
04:32 PM on 09/14/2011
Or have them creating something that will be very destructive to humanity...

It's like that joke about the title of Werner von Braun's autobiography:
"I Aim for the Stars" (but sometimes I hit London)

NASA and its contractors employ lots of really clever people who would probably be working on weapons systems if they weren't working on ways to unlock the secrets of our universe.
04:48 PM on 09/14/2011
I am one of those contractors. I would much rather work on scientific missions. If those are unavailable I still have to pay the mortgage.
01:54 PM on 09/14/2011
This is not a time to spend money on rockets. Pay down our debt and don't spend money we don't have right now. Simple as that. This rocket can be built later when we have the money. Priorities like this when so much else is needed in this country makes me sick.
02:05 PM on 09/14/2011
I wonder how sick an asteroid impact would make you feel.
I try to be reasonable
... but don't always succeed...
02:27 PM on 09/14/2011
The mission to the moon kept a lot of the country working. The Lunar Excurions Module was built right here on Long Island by Grumman, giving many, many people jobs. And that was just one part of a multi-staged rocket with a capsule that stayed in space and exporing vehicle that landed on the moon.

The Space Program is a job builder.
05:59 PM on 09/16/2011
Government giving people jobs is not the same as business creating jobs. These jobs the government is giving is payed for with money the government will borrow from our grandchildren. Do you think they want to pay for this?I wouldn't.
photo
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
12:35 PM on 09/14/2011
143 to 165 tons!  Are you kidding me?

Let me give you some perspective.  The maximum vehicle takeoff weight of a 757-300 with fuel, luggage and over two hundred passengers is 136 tons.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cdub1991
Seek first to understand, then to be understood
02:56 PM on 09/14/2011
Not sure what you're point is.
03:15 PM on 09/14/2011
It's a lot.
The biggest thing the shuttle had to lift was the shuttle itself. The payload was an afterthought to lifting the wings, landing gear, thermal protection, and airframe of the orbiter. So they took off the "reusable" bits and added the free capacity to the payload. If the shuttle can deliver one component of the ISS per launch, the SLS can deliver 5 per launch.
photo
DRaymond
Network administrator, voiceovers
06:16 PM on 09/14/2011
Not really a point so much as helping people understand what a massive lifting capacity this is.  165 tons us a number, but most people have been on, or a least seen, what a 757 is.

Or if you have to reduce it to a 'point' my 'point' is That's one big mofo rocket!
11:55 AM on 09/14/2011
You have to go for it.
11:45 AM on 09/14/2011
I really, really hope they follow through with this.
11:13 AM on 09/14/2011
This is not a matter of whether or not we can pay for it. It's a matter of whether we can or cannot do it, and just like we made it to the moon all those years ago, we will make it to Mars. It will be one more small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
J242
Micro-bio? We don't need no stinkin' micro-bio!
02:52 PM on 09/14/2011
Bravo! F&F'ed!