NASA's Space Launch System rocket is on track for August 29 liftoff
- Reference: 1661344205
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2022/08/24/nasa_sls_artemis/
- Source link:
The flight will be the first test of the space agency's super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle designed to take future astronauts to the Moon by 2025 under the Artemis program.
Like many of NASA's ambitious missions, the time and money needed to build the vehicle have far surpassed initial estimates. The SLS was projected to cost $6 billion, and slated to launch in 2016. Now, with overall costs at $23 billion and $2 billion per launch, NASA is finally going to launch the rocket next Monday in a two-hour window starting from 0833 ET (1233 UTC). Officials confirmed the SLS had passed its flight readiness review in a briefing.
[1]
Image Credit: NASA/Ben Smegelsky
Top managers and executives are in agreement about the rocket's current status and future steps, said Jim Free, NASA associate administrator for exploration systems development.
"We had no exceptions today. We actually had no actions coming out of the review and we had no dissenting opinions," he said [2]at the briefing .
[3]
Standing 322 feet tall, and weighing 5.75 million pounds, the first iteration of the SLS rocket will provide a whopping 8.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and carry 154,000 pounds of payload. NASA is planning six different variations of the launch vehicle to accommodate different cargo types and future crew deliveries.
[4]
[5]
Although all signs are go for a launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, there are a few last-minute hurdles that could throw NASA off track, such as a previous problem with the core stage's hydrogen tank with fuel.
"We believe that we have taken all the actions to correct that problem," Blackwell-Thompson said, referring to a previous hydrogen leak [6]issue . "If we do not successfully demonstrate that we are not going to launch that day," Sarafin added.
[7]
There are other difficulties that could prevent the vehicle from flying, the most obvious of which is weather. The SLS will not launch if there is a higher than 10 percent chance of lightning, 5 percent chance of hail, or if it's raining or is too windy.
[8]NASA identifies landing sites for America's return trip to the Moon
[9]Artemis I will get 3 launch attempts after termination system extension agreed
[10]NASA's Lunar Orbiter spots comfortably warm 'pits' all over the Moon
[11]ESA's 2030+ roadmap envisions Europeans on the Moon and Mars
If it all goes to plan, however, the rocket will soar into the sky taking the Orion spacecraft with it for a 42-day trip in space. The capsule will sit atop the rocket and separate two hours after liftoff; it'll then zoom 280,000 miles from Earth and 40,000 miles to the far side of the Moon during the mission. No humans will be aboard the Orion this time, but it will take the first woman and next man to our satellite in the future.
Orion will receive gravity assists from the Moon to change its orbit and set it back on the right path to return to the Earth, where it will re-enter our planet's atmosphere at 24,500 miles per hour, protected by a heat shield. NASA will be monitoring the performance of the SLS and Orion every step of the way, capturing data that will assist the space agency in future launches.
"Going 42 days puts a lot more stress on those systems, plus the environment it's in – longer exposure to radiation, longer exposure to micrometeoroid hits – means we're going to learn a lot from this test flight," said Bob Cabana, NASA associate administrator. "We're stressing it beyond what it is designed for and we'll see what we learn."
If NASA fails to launch the SLS on August 29, it has two more [12]attempts scheduled for September 2 or 5 before the agency needs to think again. ®
Get our [13]Tech Resources
[1] https://regmedia.co.uk/2022/08/23/artemis_launch.jpg
[2] https://spacenews.com/artemis-1-passes-flight-readiness-review/
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2YwZLGgXtlgD7TZvklq82DAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YwZLGgXtlgD7TZvklq82DAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33YwZLGgXtlgD7TZvklq82DAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/21/artemis_cygnus/
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/science&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44YwZLGgXtlgD7TZvklq82DAAAAMc&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/22/nasa_moon_landing/
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/15/artemis_fts/
[10] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/27/warm_lunar_pits/
[11] https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/05/esa_terrae_novae/
[12] https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/15/artemis_fts/
[13] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: robotic missions
[1]Discovery class missions cost about $500M, so about 8 - excluding a discount for buying in bulk.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Program
As someone who can (just) remember the Apollo 8 mission, I’m excited that new manned missions to the moon are finally going ahead.
We are nearly at the point now that no living people have set foot on the moon. Who could have envisaged that back in the 60s?
Beening born in the year of Apollo 8 and growing up during the moon landings, Skylab and the introduction of the reusable Shuttle, I had great dreams of future space manned missions, which have come to nothing. It is really disappointing that after 54 years we only now staging a mission equivalent mission to Apollo 8, but not even manned.
The tens of billions spent on the SLS does not even given us a core rocket as powerful as the Saturn V, as most of the SLS's thrust is achieved by the use of Space Shuttle era solid boosters with extra segments. When the Shuttle came along we thought that was the end to giant throw away rockets, with just tiny capsules splashing down in the sea at the end of a mission.
Luckily Space X is working on something different and better.
[1]Ob. XKCD
[1] https://xkcd.com/893/
The hover text on that XKCD is worth noting, too...
Conflicted.
I'd like this launch to go well, because I like space launches. At the same time, part of me hopes it grenades itself on takeoff so NASA can finally end this ridiculous outdated tech money pit.
So conflicted.
Re: Conflicted.
[1]RUD is a fairly popular outcome among human spaceflight enthusiasts. They want it on Artemis 1 because the later missions will have crews. They also want it to take out the mobile launcher platform. There is only one, and without it SLS cannot launch for Artemis 2 and 3. The SLS for Artemis 4 has a different upper stage that requires a new mobile launcher platform that does not currently exist. That would delay SLS launches until at least 2026. They hope that would divert $4B/year onto a sustainable human rated launch vehicle. (Starship HLS development + 2 missions is $3.9B - fixed fee not cost plus plus plus...)
I am a bit more pessimistic. I think a RUD would cause congress to budget $450M for a new MLP that only gets used twice - some time after 2026. In the mean time, the other Orion capsules would continue to cost $1.4B/year to gather dust and pass their sell-by dates. Everything else Artemis related would get put on hold and Artemis 1B would launch with a very brave crew.
I too have mixed feelings about this launch. Success means Artemis 2 flies with a crew in a capsule with a life support system that has never been tested in zero gravity. On the other hand I would quite like a video of the expended core stage smashing into the sea as planned with $160B worth of engines that belong in a museum.
[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/rapid_unplanned_disassembly
Re: Oops
4x RS-25 engines are $160M not 160B. Must prof reed maw better.
the time and money needed to build the vehicle have far surpassed initial estimates
Is this intended? Is this a common strategy to have projects accepted?
Standing 322 feet tall, and weighing 5.75 million pounds
Feet? Pounds? Miles?
The Middle-Age phoned and asked for its units back :-P
>8.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff and carry 154,000 pounds of payload
So setting g=1 really helps
Easy:
322 feet = 4.4654 Brontosaurus
5,750,000 lbs = 1738.8487 skateboarding rhinoceri = 299805.6331 adult badgers
8,800,000 pounds force = 391441.6618 Norris
as the [1]Register Unit Converter will tell you
[1] https://www.theregister.com/Design/page/reg-standards-converter.html
Why is the Norris just the SI unit?
I suggest the force needed to pull a cork out of a bottle = 2.718 No
Re: time and money
Yes this was the precise plan. When the shuttle program ended it was replaced by the Constellation program. Constellation was designed by the US military industrial complex to keep shuttle contractors on the gravy train by recycling as many shuttle parts as possible into a 'new' series of rockets. Their lobbyists did an excellent job selling this to politicians.
Constellation was cancelled because it was over budget and accumulated delays at around one year per year. It was replaced by the Senate Launch System. The US senate insisted on recycling shuttle parts into a new rocket because those parts were made in all the states by companies that made generous campaign contributions. The plan was to save money by using existing technology and as nothing new would be developed the contracts had to be cost plus to handle the required R&D. The boosters are shuttle boosters with a different casing material, number of segments, thermal insulation and nozzle. The core stage is the same as the shuttle except there are 4 engines instead of three, mounted on the core stage instead of the payload and the payload goes on top instead of on the side. The upper stage is mostly a Centaur but will be replaced by something closer to the right size real soon now (2026+???). The Orion capsule is straight out of the constellation program - and so far past its sell-by date that bits have already failed.
Change orders have kept the gravy train running as intended for years but now disaster has struck. Some upstart is already operating a rocket for far less than ULA charge and is in danger of getting to Mars within a decade. The SLS contractors a rushing to run up their bills as fast as possible because they can see the end of the line approaching.
"$2 billion per launch"
Thank God it's reusable.
[1]Oh wait . . .
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System
Re: "$2 billion per launch"
$2B does not include the service module or the Orion capsule. As SLS will never launch with anything else the actual cost is $4B. On top of that, divide R&D and infrastructure costs of $50B by the number of launches. The only good news is that the construction rate is limited to one per year - but not next year.
Oh-oh
"We're stressing it beyond what it is designed for and we'll see what we learn."
Is that “We are covering our backs ncase the thing doesn’t work properly?
I hope it gets off
However, how many robot missions to places like Uranus and Neptune could be paid for with that money?