The inspection revealed that the NASA SLS launch vehicle has very big problems. How the new nasa super heavy rocket is being assembled sls super heavy booster rocket
The first stage of the SLS launch vehicle uses two auxiliary boosters, which will ensure the launch of the rocket into low-earth orbit. Further, the accelerator of the upper stage of the second stage will come into play, which will be used to pull the payload from low orbit and send it towards its final destination: the Moon, Mars or one of Jupiter's satellites, Europa.
As part of the first official launch, which will most likely take place no earlier than 2020, the SLS carrier will be equipped with a temporary second stage variant. The agency is currently developing an "experimental second stage" that will allow the use of various configurations of the upper stage with different carrying capacities. The first launch with the main second stage should take place in 2023-2024. According to the adopted technical documents, in the second stage, it is planned to use four RL-10 liquid-propellant rocket engines, which have repeatedly proven their reliability since their first use in 1961.
The problem is that the RL-10 engines designed and built by Aerojet Rocketdyne are very expensive. Ars Technica reporters found that, on average, NASA had to pay $ 17 million for each RL-10 engine that will be used in the first test run. Apparently, the agency did not agree with this arrangement, and in October it made an open proposal to private space companies: to find a cheaper alternative to reduce the production costs of the launch vehicle. The published document said that in order to prepare for the third flight (Exploration Mission-3) of the SLS launch vehicle, the agency needs four rocket engines by mid-2023.
Interestingly, in mid-November, the agency edited the document. Now it says that NASA is not looking for a "cheaper alternative" to the RL-10 engines, but a "replacement." Despite the fact that at first glance this may seem like a common lexico-stylistic device, the Ars Technica portal, referring to anonymous sources from the space industry, reports that the change in the terminology used speaks volumes. In other words, NASA will ditch the RL-10 engines in the future. According to the agency’s official comments on this matter, the document was edited with the aim of attracting more stakeholders.
Blue Origin's finest hour
Some saw in the NASA document an attempt in this way to hint all the same Aerojet Rocketdyne that its RL-10 engines could be cheaper. Others say the agency's message is showing that it is ready for changes in the design of the second stage itself and is open to proposals using a different set of engines. And if so, then NASA will most likely choose BE-3U engines, writes Ars Technica. Blue Origin plans to use them in the second stage of its New Glenn heavy launch vehicle. They are a modified version of the BE-3 engines used as the main accelerator engines of the New Shepard rocket, which the company plans to use as a tourist rocket and which has already successfully flown (so far, however, as part of tests) 7 times. By the way, it should be noted that the same Orbital ATK is also considering BE-3U engines as the main second-stage system for its Next Generation Launch System. The choice in favor of the BE-3U is because the engine is capable of generating 120,000 pounds of thrust, while the RL-10 offers only 100,000.
It is not yet clear how many and which companies have responded to NASA's call, but the collection of proposals ended on December 15.
Super heavy missile SLS / Figure: trendymen.ru
In the United States, the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket under construction for manned flights has been tested, the test results are being studied, NASA reports.
The test launch of the launch accelerator developed for the Space Launch System (SLS) took place at the Orbital ATK test site in Utah.
Testing a solid propellant booster of a rocket under construction / Photo: www.nasa.gov
During the test, as close as possible to a real launch, the avionics of the future rocket was also tested. "The test is over, it was a step on our path to Mars," the agency said on its Twitter account.
The second ground test of the accelerator should take place in early 2016. The US is developing a super-heavy launch vehicle for manned space missions. The first test flight is scheduled for 2018, RIA Novosti reported.
Technical reference
NASA is working on the largest launch vehicle in history Space Launch System ... It is intended for manned expeditions beyond the Earth orbit and the launch of other cargoes, being developed by NASA instead of the Ares-5 launch vehicle, canceled together with the Constellation program. The first test flight of the SLS-1 / EM-1 launch vehicle is scheduled for the end of 2018.
Figure: www.nasa.gov
NASA has long been working on inspiring interplanetary travel projects, but none of them can match the scale of the Space Launch System. The new rocket will be the largest in history. It will be 117 meters high, which is larger than the largest rocket in the history of the Saturn 5, the one that delivered the module with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the moon.By the time of its first launch, the SLS is slated to become the most powerful operational launch vehicle in history in terms of the mass of cargo to be launched into low-Earth orbits.
It is assumed that the first stage of the rocket will be equipped with solid-fuel boosters and hydrogen-oxygen engines RS-25D / E from shuttles, and the second - with J-2X engines developed for the "Constellation" project. Also, work is underway with the old oxygen-kerosene engines F-1 from Saturn-5.
It is planned that, in terms of the mass of cargo launched into low-Earth orbits, the SLS will become the most powerful operational launch vehicle in history by the time of its first launch, as well as the fourth in the world and the second in the United States of the super-heavy launch vehicle after Saturn-5. which was used in the Apollo program to launch spacecraft to the Moon and the Soviet N-1 and Energia. The rocket will launch into space a manned spacecraft MPCV, which is designed on the basis of the Orion spacecraft from the closed program Constellation.
A super-heavy launch vehicle is primarily a pass for humanity to distant planets. This was the case with Saturn V and the flight to the moon, and so it will be with the Space Launch System. NASA developers make no secret of the fact that the rocket will become a key link in preparation for sending a man to Mars, and this may happen as early as 2021.
Figure: www.nasa.gov
To date, progress on the Space Launch System is on track. NASA is testing components of the original launch vehicle design. The entire development is planned to be completed by 2017. The Space Launch System is the result of a joint collaboration between NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed-Martin. Boeing is developing avionics for $ 2.8 billion rocket systems, while Lockheed-Martin is responsible for building the Orion manned capsule to be installed on the rocket. Ultimately NASA is going to spend about $ 6.8 billion on the Space Launch System from 2014 to 2018.
Figure: www.nasa.gov
Tactical and technical indicators
| General information | |
| Country | USA |
| Index | SLS |
| Appointment | launch vehicle |
| Developer and manufacturer | Boeing |
| Main characteristics | |
| Number of steps | 2 |
| Length, m | 102,32 |
| Diameter, m | 8,4 |
| Launch weight, kg | there is no data |
| 70,000 - 129,000 per LEO | |
| Launch history | |
| condition | in developing |
| Launch locations | LC-39, Kennedy Space Center |
| First start | planned at the end of 2018 |
| The firststep - Solid rocket booster | |
| Cruising engine | Solid rocket motor |
| Traction, MN | 12.5 at sea level |
| Specific impulse, sec | 269 |
| Working time, sec | 124 |
On the territory of the huge, but little-known NASA plant, entire teams of specialists (scientists, engineers, designers) have been developing space projects for years, sometimes very dubious. And this is not some unsubstantiated assumption, but rather the sad story of NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF), a grandiose manufacturing facility in New Orleans where the agency has been building its largest rockets for decades.
In 2011, after the final flight of the Space Shuttle, located in huge hangars production area the plant was leased to Hollywood film studios: scenes from the film "Ender's Game" and other sci-fi films were filmed here.
After the closure of the Constellation program, which was to become the successor to the Space Shuttle system, the United States decided to turn to private contractors to deliver cargo to low-earth orbit and create a super-heavy rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS), which will deliver astronauts and cargo to distant space.
Based on the components of the Shuttle, with enthusiastic support from politicians from the states where its components are made, the SLS has been dubbed the Rocket to Nowhere. This congressionally lobbied program had no specific goals and the chances of launching it were slim.
However, it is still being implemented and financed from the budget. The planning of the expedition with her participation is in full swing, and the first launch is scheduled for 2018. The longevity of the SLS, like any program designed for several decades, depends on future politicians. Will this "flying piece of public pie" the best way getting to Mars is a big question.
Later, however, a team of NASA engineers and technicians arrived here, whose task was to develop and manufacture important new products - a continuation of the agency's great ideas for launching a man into space. MAF is back in business with the largest and most ambitious spacecraft ever aircraft - a super-heavy launch vehicle called the Space Launch System (SLS). With its help, NASA plans to carry out a landmark launch of an astronaut crew from Cape Canaveral, Florida, in a long - more years - travel to Mars, with the goal of delivering shelter modules, vehicles and food to a planet covered with a thick layer of rusty dust, which will take several weeks. It will take another 25 years to implement this program. During this time, SLS could deliver people to the Moon and some asteroid and send a space probe to look for signs of life on one of Jupiter's moons - Europa.
This grandiose interplanetary project is one of the most daring ever undertaken by NASA.
So why does he have so many opponents?
After the dizzying success of the Apollo program in the 1960s and early 1970s. on the implementation of the first manned landing on the moon, it was assumed that the Space Shuttle would become a relatively cheap routine means of delivering crews and cargo to low-earth orbit and the shuttles would scurry between the Earth and orbit. In fact, it turned out that the average cost of one shuttle launch exceeds $ 1 billion, while flights were possible only a few times a year, and two of them ended in disasters.
In 2004, a year after the destruction of the Columbia ship during its return to Earth, which resulted in the death of seven astronauts, US President George W. Bush demanded that NASA stop operating the Shuttle and begin developing an Apollo-like program that would return us to flights to The moon, and then to Mars. The result was the Constellation space project, which created two new launch vehicles: Ares I for launching a manned research vehicle into orbit and the super-heavy cargo Ares V, a version of the Saturn V launch vehicle. However, by 2011, when the total cost of the "Constellation" amounted to about $ 9 billion, as a result, only Lockheed Martin's multipurpose manned spacecraft "Orion" and a rocket that made only one test launch were created. By the decision of President Barack Obama, the program was curtailed, and an expedition to one of the asteroids became a new landmark for NASA's further activities, at his direction. To deliver crews and cargo to the International Space Station (ISS), the agency was forced to turn to private firms.
However, many members of Congress are lobbying hard to continue work on a new heavy launch vehicle capable of delivering people to the Moon and Mars. The compromise was SLS. the only large rocket designed to transport both crews and cargo, which has not been touched by many of the latest technologies used in the creation of "Ares"; instead, the Shuttle's engines, boosters and fuel tanks were used. In other words, the SLS was a cheaper version of the Ares.
Evil tongues claimed that Congress came up with it in order to justify the activities of NASA and its main contractors. "The peculiarity of this space project is that the launch vehicle was first created under the auspices of politicians, not scientists and engineers," wrote the weekly Economist magazine last December. Some critics scoffed at the SLS as a "feeding rocket" or "Senatorial Launch System." Senators of the Southern States, where large factories NASA, or their contractors, have indeed been active supporters of SLS in Congress. Among them are Richard Shelby, Senator from Alabama (more than 6,000 people work at NASA's George Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, where SLS is run) and David Vitter, Senator from Louisiana (where MAF's assembly plant is located). Boeing, the main main stage manufacturer, has already employed many of the 1,500 employees on the program.
SLS structure
This is both a big program and a big rocket. In the initial version, the first stage is supposed to be equipped with four RS-25 hydrogen-oxygen engines from the Shuttles: they will be located in its lower part. Solid propellant boosters will be installed on the sides of the first stage, providing launching thrust to lift the super-heavy rocket from the Earth. The engines of the second stage, located above the first, should turn on at an altitude of about 50 km and launch the rocket into orbit together with the Orion manned spacecraft placed in its bow. With a length of 98 meters, the rocket will be slightly shorter, but significantly more powerful than the Saturn V, which delivered all expeditions to the moon, and will be able to carry three times more payload than the Shuttle. None of the components of this rocket are recyclable. The next modifications of the SLS, which will be created in ten years, will be equipped with more powerful main engines and accelerators. The SLS, designed to fly to Mars, will have an even more powerful second stage, capable of delivering twice the thrust of the first version.
Project critics point out that. that by equipping the SLS with Shuttle assemblies and parts, Congress is supporting the major aerospace contractors who made shuttle parts. “Once again, Boeing is acting like a bandit,” said Peter Wilson, chief defense research analyst at the US Strategic Research and Development Center (RAND). Others argue that the shuttle's reusability principle will present the SLS with the problem of connecting the latest missile to the components of an obsolete vehicle. For instance. during the installation of the Shuttle's solid-propellant boosters, the problem of breaking the thermal insulation at the docking points already arises.
The estimated total cost of SLS varies widely: NASA publicly states that the first launch will cost $ 18 billion: the launch vehicle itself will cost $ 10 billion, the Orion manned spacecraft $ 6 billion, and $ 2 billion will be needed to prepare the Cape Canaveral launch complex. »For SLS launches. (Incidentally, Senator Bill Nelson, Florida, was another staunch defender of SLS.) But anecdotal evidence based on internal analysis suggests that more than $ 60 billion will be spent on the program over the next ten years. According to preliminary estimates, the delivery of the crew to Mars will cost about $ 1 trillion. NASA estimates the cost of one SLS launch at $ 500 million, but some experts believe that, taking into account the cost of the entire program, this figure could rise to $ 14 billion.
According to opponents, the enthusiasm of the government and the general population for space exploration is unlikely to remain the same in the face of such costs. Some analytical studies, including one conducted by NASA, suggest that it is possible to reach the depths of space and fly to Mars without a super-heavy launch vehicle. Others argue that it would be cheaper to use smaller launch vehicles (for example, Delta IV, which has been putting satellites into orbit for ten years now) to deliver fuel, components and everything needed to mount interplanetary spacecraft into low-Earth orbits. , and carry out the assembly already in space. And if it turns out that we really need a super-powerful rocket, why not build a new space station first and transfer work there?
The American company Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX), founded by Silicon Valley star, successful engineer and entrepreneur Elon Musk, won the COTS competition (part of NASA's program) to deliver cargo and crews to the ISS using its well-proven launch vehicles Falcon9. “SLS is just a small improvement in technology developed 40 years ago,” says James Pura (Latee Riga), president of the Space Research Foundation, which promotes the fastest growing space exploration. "It would be nice for NASA to inform private manufacturers what kind of cargo it is going to send into deep space, to allocate a certain amount of money for this work and let companies like SraceX do it." SraceX is developing a 27-engine heavy-class launch vehicle, such as the SLS, and is working on new, more powerful engines that, if successful, will surpass the largest modifications imaginable. Importantly, SraceX intends to make the main nodes reusable. The SLS, on the other hand, is a completely and completely disposable design.
Despite all this, preparations for the SLS program are in full swing. In 2018, the first unmanned aircraft with Orion will be launched, which will fly near the moon, leaving it far behind; the second flight, presumably in five years, will take approximately the same trajectory, but with the crew on board, and thus people will move away from the Earth at the greatest distance in the history of astronautics. What follows is ultimately up to Congress and the new president, but today a manned asteroid mission is planned for the mid-2020s, and the next astronaut expedition to Mars is planned for the 2030s.
Rocket factory
NASA is testing its heaviest rockets at the Space Center. John Stennis, which is located among the many lakes, rivers and canals in Hancock County, near the southernmost border of Mississippi. While we are putting on helmets and vests with reflective stripes. Tom Byrd, who served as Deputy Administrator here until his retirement in January, shares three reasons the center is so close to the water: First, the center needs large barges to be able to sail to it. : secondly, it is necessary to test the structure in water conditions; third, water is required to cool huge metal plates, which are exposed to temperatures close to the temperature at the surface of the sun, where they can be.
Each test bench is a huge reinforced concrete structure that resembles a multi-storey panel block removed from the middle of a transcontinental cargo ship. We climb up one of the booths, and along the way I am shown a control room reminiscent of the control room of Soviet power plants from around the 1950s. with steam gauges and large dials. I asked why they are not improving equipment and using digital devices. The answer only confirmed some unwritten rule that SLS members follow: It took decades to get these things to work well, countless bugs and glitches were fixed. So should we now let it all take its course?
However, from the roof of the stand I saw that in fact the Space Center looks quite modern. The canals and roads have been redesigned so that oversized cargo can be transported along them, the test stands themselves have been reconstructed and strengthened, since the SLS will exert significantly more pressure on them. than any other rockets. "The thrust developed on the test bench is greater than in a real launch, since the rocket cannot get away from the jet of gases escaping from its nozzle," explains Byrd. Throughout the test run, which lasts about nine minutes, thousands of nozzles spray the walls of the stand with high-pressure water jets - and this is done not for cooling, but to compensate for the strongest vibration that could otherwise destroy the stand. Even before the SLS trials, no individuals were allowed to be less than 13 km from the stand. because the sound waves generated during the test run can knock anyone off their feet. And the SLS engines will develop such powerful thrust, which was previously unattainable on Earth.
Across the Mississippi-Louisiana border, a few hours' canal journey (or, in my case, 45 minutes by car) is Michoud, which I visited the next day. Unlike the secluded center named after. Stennis, the Michoud plant is located in an industrial area on the outskirts of New Orleans. In some respects, it is an ordinary, no different factory with welding stations, forklift trucks, cranes and component warehouses, newer it is on a much larger scale.
The inside of the plant is glowing. We go on an excursion to inspect the complex meter by meter, and we see that it is literally stuffed with new equipment: robot arms, scurrying back and forth at incredible speed, wheeled platforms and crane-like loaders that easily and quickly move ten-ton parts and assemblies, picking control systems, which ensure that the engine assembled from hundreds of thousands of parts is complete. All its components are installed in their places and there is not a single excess left. When you build a machine as large as the SLS booster rocket motor, the slightest inaccuracy must be avoided. “If our parts tracking system reports that one tiny washer is redundant, all work will be stopped immediately until we figure out where it’s missing,” says Patrick Whipps, one of NASA's Michoud plant managers. ...
Many of the components that will be used here in the assembly of rockets were intended for other spacecraft. "We are not at all striving to use as many exclusive parts and assemblies as possible." says William Gerstenmaier, NASA's deputy chief executive for space exploration. “In addition, new production equipment and modern technology will significantly reduce the cost of these parts compared to the recent past, ”adds Whipps. The retrofits include, for example, rotary friction welding units the size of a water tower each. This giant can accommodate two
massive aluminum alloy sections of the rocket where rotating pins connect them together. It is the largest plant of this type in the world.
The creators are going beyond the Shuttle technology in many other aspects. To find out. What kind of loads is exposed as a result of buffering and other aerodynamic vibrations during climb in the atmosphere, NASA turned to modern software that simulates fluid dynamics. Otherwise, engineers would have to redesign the rocket in order to provide greater resistance to loads, and thereby raise the lower bound of acceptable error. In addition, new avionics and digital control systems operating on microcircuits are several generations ahead of those used on space shuttles, which makes it possible to automate flight and greatly increase the speed of sensors installed on engines, which respond to unexpected changes in their operation. and emergency situations.
The shuttle's remaining unused engines will allow the first four SLS flights, but in the 2020s. new versions will be needed. To make them, NASA is using equipment that will produce thousands of coin-sized turbine blades by laser melting metal powder and casting it into finished molds instead of processing each one separately: this reduces the production time for a set of engine blades from a year to one. months. “To reduce costs for labor force and to improve accuracy, all operations are computerized, ”says Gerstenmeier.
Arguments for SLS
When the SLS program reaches full steam, it will be possible to launch at least two missiles a year - and perhaps the number will increase to four. By the standards of the rocket industry, this is already mass production. But it could stall if NASA fails to convince the American public that it is worthwhile.
Essentially, there are two main arguments against - firstly, that $ 18 billion is too much for a rocket, and secondly, that for research purposes it would be wiser to send probes and robots into space, rather than people. In fact, $ 18 billion will not be enough to make a manned flight to another planet and back: in reality, this amount is three times the cost of laying the Great Boston Tunnel. It's easy to say that there are cheaper ways to solve this problem, but NASA's safety requirements are raising the bar high, and the US public is unlikely to come to terms with the increased likelihood of equipment failure with catastrophic consequences at the cost of saving several thousandths of the federal budget.
With regard to probes and robots, the scientific value of manned flights is higher than in cases using probes and rovers. After all, the real meaning of human flights into space is to search for as many places as possible suitable for the human race.
SLS does have many supporters. Among them are the current NASA leadership and people in high positions, experts in the space industry, as well as the part of the American public who watched with deep excitement the successful orbital flight of the Orion spacecraft with a crew on board, which will be in the bow of the SLS when it travels into distant space. And now it's easier for supporters of the project to refute the arguments of its opponents point by point.
Should the components and fuel be delivered to orbit using smaller rockets and assembled there? Gerstenmeier estimates that a manned mission to Mars will require about 500 tons of various materials. They could be delivered in four rounds, or - alternatively - they would need to launch at least two dozen of Delta IV missiles to the limit. Gerstenmeier argues that each launch increases the overall risk of program failure, as the worst happens most often in the first minute of flight. At the same time, there is a high probability of a delay in individual launches, which ultimately will lead to the stretching of the program as a whole. “We used reusable shuttles to assemble the International Space Station, and the whole process took several decades. he says. "But the biggest drawback of in-orbit assembly is the accumulation of a large number of objects in one place - living quarters, interplanetary ships, fuel storage." The picture is depressing, especially considering that our experience in assembling very complex ships in space is very limited. “There are a lot of connections to do the assembly work,” explains Gerstenmaier. - Inevitably, some components will not function properly and are unlikely to be repaired on site. All this will significantly increase the complexity and risk of the operation. " At the same time, the transverse dimensions of the SLS are such that oversized loads such as solar panels and antenna arrays can be placed in the bulk carrier, which would otherwise have to be packed somehow, risking damage to them.
Another important advantage of using heavy-load missiles is that due to some of their excess thrust, the speed can be increased, i.e. faster to deliver the spaceship to its destination. This point is critical for manned missions to Mars, since the effects of radiation and the need to carry enough supplies severely limit the duration of the expedition. Long-distance unmanned missions are also of undoubted benefit, since the data they receive helps to plan subsequent flights in an optimal way. Thanks to its immense power, the SLS is capable of delivering expeditions into deep space using only its own fuel and not performing gravitational maneuvers around the planets, as the Voyager and Galileo spacecraft did.
“SLS will cut travel time to Europe from over six to two and a half years,” said Scott Hubbard, a consulting professor of aviation and space at Stanford University. "It will be a good help for other, as yet unrealizable scientific expeditions." Combine the higher payload and layout variability with the reduction in flight time, and you have a strong case for a super-heavy launch vehicle. It is becoming clear why China and Russia are developing and designing SLS missiles.
Today, there is no competition in deep space exploration and is not expected. In the future - only a few expeditions in which NASA plans to use SLS. Thus, SpaceX does not have the ability to influence the cost of super-heavy rockets, as it does with its smaller rockets. “As a result, SpaceX is not in better positionthan Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other aerospace contractors, ”says Scott Parazynski, a former NASA astronaut and veteran of five Shuttle missions now at Arizona State University. “These are very qualified contractors, and I see no reason why it would be worth giving them up in favor of SpaceX,” he explains.
Proven paths are not always suitable for repairing breakdowns in cars, mobile phones and other devices, but when it comes to the lightning-fast delivery of a team of brave men into deep space on the wings of an almost uncontrollable explosion, a certain conservatism does not hurt. SpaceX's first few rockets exploded on launch, and there were cases of loss of control - and this is a common occurrence when developing new designs. Last October, a crew member was killed when a prototype rocket that Virgin Galactic was building for tourist suborbital space travel exploded. The incident occurred exactly three days after the explosion at the start of an unmanned spacecraft developed by the private company Orbital Sciences Corporation (OSC), which was supposed to deliver a consignment of cargo to the ISS.
All this once again reminds that, despite the experience of several decades, rocketry remains an industry fraught with great risks. This is one of the reasons why the Inspiration Mars Foundation, an American non-profit organization, facilitating the dispatch of a manned expedition to fly around Mars in January 2018, is among those who, doubts aside, are now queuing up to participate in the SLS project. “The criticism of the SLS began when it was not yet known where the rocket would fly,” Hubbard says. "However, today it is clear what it is intended for, and now is the time for each of us to think about what we can do to come to a general agreement."
Second space speed
On a cold January evening this year, one of the giant test benches for testing the engines of the Space Center. John Stennis turned into a pillar of fire for 500 seconds. These were the first firing tests of the Shuttle RS-25 main engine since 2009, and it withstood them flawlessly. If everything goes on as well, the time factor will play a positive role for SLS. The longer the implementation of the program takes - if it is financed from the budget and is not interrupted - the greater its right to exist. In the first three years, the program made impressive progress, easily passing through the project evaluation steps and entering the initial production phase. This is incredibly fast for a powerful manned rocket. Only a few problems arose, of which the gaps in the thermal insulation system were the most serious, and they were quickly eliminated with a layer of adhesive.
"In the coming years, with a new president and Congress, anything could happen," said Joan Johnson-Freese, professor of space at the US Naval War College. Perhaps the government will come to such a decision that we will have to abandon dreams of Mars and focus on creating a space base somewhere closer to home. Some in Washington DC have an almost pathological nostalgia for going to the moon. " There are those who believe that NASA should now forget about both the Moon and Mars and turn all its attention to asteroids - not only because they can provide answers to important questions about the origin of the solar system, but also in connection with the fact that we need to learn how to direct them away from the Earth or destroy in the event of a collision threat.
However, Mars still excites the minds of the scientific community, especially because there is hope to get to the Red Planet during the lifetime of present generations. “Any of us would like to be there,” says Parazinski. "Other missions would only divert resources and create confusion and vacillation." He worries about SLS, but not because he sees the project as the best way to get to Mars. He is worried about the fact that the mission will not be cheap and is unlikely to be carried out in the near future; can happen like this. that SLS will be discarded before it gets there.
So far, there are no obstacles to the implementation of the project. There is no alternative to the rocket being created, and you can be sure that the project is on the right course. Undoubtedly, this program was cobbled together with the participation and on behalf of the Congress. Yes, it needs cutting edge technology and competing designs. But, apparently, the work will go according to plan and in the foreseeable future will be funded in the required amount. And if the SLS becomes the very rocket that takes us to Mars, then all criticisms will be forgotten very soon.
Please enable JavaScript to view the 2013-06-21. The delegation paid a visit to the Michoud Assembly Facility (MAF) located in New Orleans (Louisiana), where Boeing, the main contractor for the creation of the central rocket unit of the Space Launch System (SLS) of a heavy class, created a modern equipment, mainly for a significant reduction in the production cost of the SLS LV, even at its low rates. MAF's plant is one of the largest in the world and is owned by NASA. In the visiting delegation, organized by the company Boeing, NASA officials, local and government officials, and media representatives attended. The purpose of the visit is to demonstrate new equipment for vertical welding (Vertical Weld Center), namely, a three-story center created by Boeing, Futuramic Tool and Engineering and PAR Systems, with the help of which cylindrical segments of the base module of the SLS launch vehicle with a diameter of 8.4 m will be formed by welding aluminum panels. With the help of new equipment, as well as specialists numbering less than 1000 people, NASA and Boeing will be able to produce two basic SLS LV modules per year. The presented equipment is more advanced than that previously used at the enterprise for the production of suspended fuel tanks (PTB) of the Space Shuttle reusable transport space system (MTSS). The use of new equipment greatly simplifies manufacturing processes and reduces the cost of production. Previously, to perform such work, it was required from 3 to 5 units of various equipment, now the use of one tool allows not only to perform welded seams of the module, but also specialists can inspect the welding after completion of work, which would previously require moving the object to another working position. After the end of the visit, U. Gerstenmaier, NASA's head of manned flights, praised the new vertical welding center and said that the planned launches of the SLS launch vehicle would be carried out infrequently, but with a high degree of safety, and that the cost of creating the SLS launch vehicle would significantly decrease ... The SLS LV will be equipped with four additional RS-25 main engines, which were previously part of the Space Shuttle MTKS. A total of 16 of these engines are operated by NASA at the Stennis Space Center. The first launch of the SLS LV with the Orion capsule mock-up is planned for 2017. The next launch in 2021 depends on technical and political factors, but NASA plans to fly to an asteroid to capture it and redirect its trajectory to high lunar orbit using new robotic spacecraft. NASA provides funding in the amount of $ 1.8 billion per year for the development of the SLS launch vehicle, including the construction of a rocket test bench in pcs. Mississippi and launch infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center (Florida). Together with funding for the Orion manned capsule being built by Lockheed Martin, the budget is nearly $ 3 billion a year. Given the cost and scale of the SLS LV program, NASA is planning a manned mission to Mars. However, on June 19, 2013, during a congressional hearing of the SLS LV bill, the low speed of the SLS LV raised doubts among some industry observers.Last week, the United States completed the verification and protection of the working draft of the super-heavy launch vehicle SLS (Space Launch System). At this stage, which took about 2.5 months, the developers and specialists confirmed the correctness and effectiveness of all design solutions. Production of the main rocket blocks for the first launch, which is scheduled for November 2018, has already begun. Thus, the development of the SLS has already passed the milestone, which five years ago did not reach the project of the previous American super-heavy rocket "Ares V".
The decision to develop SLS was made in 2011. The process is broken down into three stages, corresponding to the degree of media upgrade. At the first stage, the SLS Block 1 rocket will be created. It will receive a basic first stage with a diameter of 8.4 m, equipped with four RS-25 oxygen-hydrogen engines. For the first launches, it is proposed to use engines removed from space shuttles. In the future, Aerojet Rocketdyne will have to restore their production. The second stage of the Block 1 SLS will be a modified version of the upper stage of the Delta IV rocket, called the ICPS - temporary cryogenic stage. The thrust at the start will be provided by two solid-propellant boosters, which differ from the shuttle boosters only by an additional fuel block. SLS Block 1 will be able to lift up to 70 t into low Earth orbit. According to NASA's current plans, which, however, have not yet been approved, the rocket of this modification will make only 1-2 flights.
In the first half of the 2020s, the operation of the SLS Block 1B rocket will begin. A new second stage EUS (research upper stage) will be developed for it. Thanks to it, the carrying capacity of the carrier will increase to 105 tons. SLS Block 1B will become the main carrier of the American deep space flight program in the next decade.
At the final stage of the development of the SLS project, the modernization of solid fuel accelerators will be carried out. After that, the rocket, known as the Block 2 SLS, will be able to launch up to 130 tons into low Earth orbit. As such, it is planned to be used to launch Martian expeditions in the 2030s and 2040s. It is important to note that in earlier plans for the third stage, it was supposed to equip the rocket with a completely new upper stage EDS (Earth Departure Stage, Stage for departure from the Earth). However, now the developers felt that the EUS developed in the second stage could provide the necessary carrying capacity. In addition, the Block 2 SLS will receive an over-caliber head fairing with a diameter of at least 10 m.
Reviewing and defending the SLS project took 11 weeks. The specialists made sure that the project meets all the requirements for equipment designed for launching manned spacecraft. Have been approved technical documentation for production and testing of test samples of various systems has begun. NASA recently announced the completion of testing of an upper stage test product and the start of production of a flight product. Construction of the ICPS is due to be completed in July 2016. The development of the first stage is in preparation for the creation of a test sample that will confirm the reliability of the new welding technology. The start of work is scheduled for early December 2015, completion - in the second half of the month.
Oddly enough, the main topic of discussion last week was the "rusty" color of the first stage of the rocket. The fact is that in years past, NASA artists preferred to portray her as white. At the same time, in the internal documentation of the agency, the rocket is already for a long time depicted as brown. Oddly enough, the refusal to paint can increase the carrying capacity of the rocket by several hundred kilograms. This is one of the reasons why the developers at the very beginning of the space shuttle program decided not to paint the fuel tanks of the shuttles with white paint. NASA had no particular reason to hide the true color of the carrier from the public. There is an opinion that this was done to avoid unnecessary associations with the canceled "Ares V". There are indeed many similarities between missiles. Both were built on a large oxygen-hydrogen first stage (10 m in the previous project, 8.4 for the SLS) and space shuttle boosters. The increased carrying capacity of "Ares" (160-180 tons) was achieved through the use of six RS-25 engines, which in the later years of the project's development, moreover, were decided to be replaced with more powerful RS-68 engines.
The main complaint about SLS is its cost. The 2025 program, including rocket launches and the development and operation of Orion spacecraft, will cost NASA approximately $ 35 billion. The cost of one SLS launch will be at least 500-700 million for regular flights 1-2 times a year, and significantly higher - due to infrastructure maintenance costs - for flights once every two years.
