The end of the Space Shuttle program earlier this year was preceded by a quite contentious debate over the direction of manned space flight policy. Last year, the President announced the Administration's intention to end the Constellation program & embraced shifting development and operation of new rockets and capsules for low-Earth orbit (LEO) travel from the government to private industry.
However, that plan received a very hostile reception in Congress. In the end, a compromise was worked out with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. The Act scrapped some of the Constellation program (the Orion spacecraft was retained) and funded private spaceflight companies (however, only $1.6 billion over three years, instead of the Administration’s original proposal for $6 billion over five years).
It also directed NASA to immediately begin development of a heavy lift launch vehicle by 2017 for future missions to the Moon, nearby asteroids and Mars. Today NASA announced the design for that vehicle. The Space Launch System envisions a rocket that will be 30-stories-tall, uses five of the Space Shuttle's main engines and more powerful than Wernher von Braun's Saturn V design.
However, there are some open questions & rubs to be worked out.
From NASA:
The Space Launch System, or SLS, will be designed to carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, as well as important cargo, equipment and science experiments to Earth's orbit and destinations beyond. Additionally, the SLS will serve as a back up for commercial and international partner transportation services to the International Space Station.
"This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space, and inspire millions around the world," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "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."
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. That's more than 154,000 pounds, or 77 tons, roughly the weight of 40 sport utility vehicles. The lift capacity will be evolvable to 130 metric tons -- more than 286,000 pounds, or 143 tons -- enough to lift 75 SUVs. The first developmental flight, or mission, is targeted for the end of 2017.
So what are the questions and "
rubs"? For one thing, there is the question what its mission would be? The Moon? An asteroid? Mars? That's still to be developed on a drawing board.
The other rub is funding. The cost to develop this is estimated to be about $18 billion over the next six years (however, other sources claim the number is more like $35 billion).
In the grand scheme of the federal budget (and the bullshit that gets funded through earmarks), $35 billion spread out over the better part of a decade is a very small percentage of the whole. However, this is being announced in the backdrop of a "supercommittee" looking to hack & slash that same budget, and some Republicans in Congress pushing to significantly chop the NASA budget as part of austerity measures.
From the New York Times:
The schedule beyond the first test flight depends on future budgets. The first rocket that is to fly in 2017 will consist of a single stage. Internal NASA documents suggest that if the space agency’s budget remains flat, providing about $41 billion from 2012 through 2025, NASA will not be able to do much work on the second stage, needed to increase the lift capability, until after 2017, and the first manned flight would not occur until 2021.
Subsequent flights would occur only once every year or two, and the final version, capable of lifting 130 metric tons, would not be completed for two decades.
With more money, perhaps as much as $62 billion over the next 14 years, the agency estimated that the first manned flight could be moved up by three years and the 130-metric-ton rocket could be available by 2021. It could fly up to two missions a year and still have enough to start developing the necessary pieces for a mission to an asteroid, like a deep-space habitat — essentially a living room for astronauts during long space trips.
Senator [Kay Bailey] Hutchison (R-TX) said there was now broad support from the administration and both parties in Congress on the space exploration plan. She said even among the ardent budget cutters in her party, “they have not cut the core mission of NASA, because they see that as part of the American spirit and most certainly part of the American economy and America’s national security where we cannot afford to be in second place.”
The argument over NASA & its budget has been contentious with certain segments of the country, even when the economy was in better shape. The old argument of "
Why are we wasting money on a space program?" is one I find very tiring & very dumb. It's also something that cuts across the ideological spectrum. If they believe the 4,000-year-old Earth is round, conservatives who object to NASA see it as money that could be a potential tax cut. Liberals/progressives who object to NASA somehow see it as an agency that's taking money away from hungry children & people without health care. Both perspectives are based around a fallacy, and indicative of a mindset that sees any big project or idea (
whether it be going to the Moon, high speed rail, solar/wind/space-based power, etc.) as either too "
hard" and too "
costly", or somehow places it into an either-or dichotomy that detracts from some other "
more worthy" cause.
Last year, astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is the director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan, was asked about the direction of NASA, and proceeded to outline his view of the cost/worth of NASA... and of dreams.
According to The Hill, these were some of the reactions in Congress to this rocket design.
- “NASA’s design for a new launch system into space will lead to safer and more distant exploration than we’ve ever had before. I will follow closely NASA’s progress on this new launch system as well as future missions — missions to advance scientific discovery and pursue human exploration in a new and sustainable way."
— Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)
- “The vehicle concept and design being formally announced today is consistent with the design and development approach that was directed by the NASA Authorization Act. Because of the delays in announcing this design, it is imperative that we work with NASA to assure that the new Space Launch System is pursued without further losses of time and efficiency, while relying on NASA’s world-class engineers and designers to continue U.S. leadership in space exploration.”
— Senate Commerce ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas)
- “This is the biggest thing for space exploration in decades. The goal is to fly humans safely beyond low-Earth orbit and deep into outer space where we can not only survive, but one day also live.”
— Senate Science and Space Subcommittee Chairman Bill Nelson (D-Fla.)
- “This decision provides some certainty for NASA employees as we work to retain the best and brightest workers who have the experience to take us further into space.”
— Science and Space Subcommittee ranking member John Boozman (R-Ark.)