

NASA Announces Design for New Deep Space Exploration System - llambda
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls1.html

======
russell
"...kids today can now dream of one day walking on Mars."

Hell, I dreamed of walking on Mars when I worked on the Apollo Project. I
never dreamed that 2011 would come and we would never have even gone back to
the moon. It makes me regret even more that I never made the trek to Florida
to see a Saturn V launch.

~~~
anigbrowl
Expand on this, please.

~~~
hirenj
I was fascinated, so I dug through Russell's comment history -
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2746192>

------
EREFUNDO
The Chinese explored the Middle East and Africa almost 100 years before the
Europeans. Every expedition consisted of 300 ships, some as long as 400 feet
with 9 mast and an armada crew totaling 28,000 men. After 30 years of doing it
they realized that they were spending too much money on these grand
expeditions. The succeeding emperor ended the program. The Europeans on the
other hand would send out just a few ships and try to find ways for the
expeditions to be profitable (Slaves, gold, land, colonies) in ways the
Chinese never thought. These smaller European expeditions could not be stopped
by one emperor because Europe was not a unified empire like China. The smaller
European kingdoms also competed against each other. This not only made the
expeditions sustainable but thrive for the next 500 years. Right now I think
we are in China's situation 600 years ago. We stopped the moon landings for
the same reason the Chinese stopped landing Eunuchs in Africa. Unless we find
a way for these space programs to be profitable I don't see humans colonizing
space anytime soon.

~~~
VladRussian
it can be turned the other way as well - Chinese fell into stagnation and lost
the technological, power and all other races during last 2-3 centuries because
they stopped the exploration and closeted themselves inside their kingdom.

>We stopped the moon landings for the same reason the Chinese stopped landing
Eunuchs in Africa.

and we don't go to Mars and beyond for the same reason Chinese didn't venture
deep into and across the Pacific to America - too technically challenging,
unknown and dangerous

~~~
EREFUNDO
I agree. The emperor who replaced Zhu Di was more conservative and thought
that China should close its doors. He famously said that "The outside world
had nothing to offer China, it is too primitive and backwards, leave it
alone." This inward looking mentality, fueled by the belief in your own
superiority, is the disease of great powers. I am afraid that in some ways the
United States has become one, maybe it's a good indicator of a power in
decline.

~~~
EREFUNDO
The eventual decline and stagnation was the effect of the decision to close
China's doors. But the cause of the end of the expeditions was largely
financial. Culture also has an important role to play. The Chinese were not
looking for new lands or have any interest in converting people to their
religion. They were looking for respect and recognition. They want to prove to
the world that China is the undisputed power on Earth and that they are the
pinnacle of civilization. They could not have imagined that the world is about
to enter into a period of tremendous change so they felt no reason to change
their imperial system. How can you change perfection? ...LOL

~~~
VladRussian
>Culture also has an important role to play. The Chinese were not looking for
new lands or have any interest in converting people to their religion.

Bingo. Gene Roddenberry's genius is replacing the classical humans' violence
fueled drivers of "new lands or ... interest in converting people to their
religion" with "to explore new worlds, to seek out a new life, and new
civilizations" :) I hope that he will eventually be proven right.

~~~
EREFUNDO
haha......maybe the Chinese were following an earlier version of the prime
directive...LOL

------
marze
The primary design objective for this system, as well as the cancelled
programs NASA wasted billions on over the last four years, is to:

Spend the same money in all the congressional districts that the Shuttle
program spent money in.

$18B is 50 times what NASA has paid out to SpaceX so far, and SpaceX already
has already developed a working rocket. Congress could fund 50 SpaceX-like
firms for that same amount.

Instead, Congress is attempting to cut the money NASA has requested for
commercial crew transport.

~~~
russell_h
My favorite part is that the first quote in the article is "This launch system
will create good-paying American jobs". When an election isn't coming up they
at least put that below the nationalistic/visionary stuff.

------
hga
Ah, yes, the Senate Launch System. Looks rather like the more sensible DIRECT;
I haven't looked closely at it yet, but from glancing at the Wikipedia entry
the Feb 11 design shows it's already a boondoggle (as reported by people I
trust) by using 5 segment SRBs, one of the fatal flaws of the Ares I (going
from 4 to 5 segments results in thrust oscillations severe enough to kill the
crew). And from what they're _not_ saying it sounds like they're sticking with
the Ares program's wider SRBs, which fantastically drove up the cost of it.

Well, since NASA has been more public works program than anything else since
Apollo (and even then, helping the South was an explicit goal of Apollo), I
suppose it's fitting. But can we really afford this sort of thing as opposed
to building up a commercial launch sector in any one of a number of ways?

~~~
bfe
I know a few people who know more than me about astro engineering who approve
of these jumbo SRBs... but I still just don't buy that they're a good idea for
human-rated launch systems. U.S. astronauts who are used to flying on the
Space Shuttle and then ride a Soyuz up to orbit can't believe how incredibly
smooth and peaceful liftoff is - because the propulsion system is just liquid
kerosene - liquid oxygen. Launch stacks with SRBs have to have so much extra
weight in structural support just to deal with the immense acoustic load - and
even then, it's hard to accept that they can reach the level of inherent
safety of a straight liquid fuel stack.

~~~
hga
Note my other comment on why liquid fueled rockets are preferred for manned
flight _because you can turn them off_. Once you light off a SRB you're 100%
committed until it burns out (at best, although at least the fuel in the Space
Shuttle ones has a proper pressure and burn rate feedback: as pressure
increases burn rate goes down, addressing some of the worst issues, e.g. a
sudden increase in propellant surface area due to a crack).

To my now somewhat hazy memory, except for the first few Mercury suborbital
missions (which were done in a real hurry) the only manned space flight system
to use SRBs is the Shuttle.

------
zrail
If SpaceX and friends can reliably launch cargo and eventually humans into
LEO, why can't NASA focus on what to put into space, rather than how to get
there? I'm sure I don't understand the mechanics of it, but wouldn't it be
possible to put up a few smaller cargo carriers containing fuel and pieces of
a trans-mars ship and assemble it in orbit?

~~~
krschultz
The proposed payload for the NASA SLS is 64,000kg-120,000kg while the Falcon 9
is 10,450 kg. The proposed payload for the Falcon Heavy is 53,000 kg.

So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have flown)
or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown).

I don't think it's a stretch to say that using Space X would be significantly
cheaper to get the same weight up there because the design work is already
done. You probably would want to use the Falcon Heavy because you don't want
to piece together 10 different things, but that is just 3 Falcon 9s strapped
together which I can't imagine is as expensive as designing a new launch
vehicle from scratch.

You are absolutely right that at this point NASA needs to get out of the
launching game. Use the tax money for payloads whether that is a manned
mission or robots.

~~~
burgerbrain
_"So to match 1 SLS launch you are looking at 6-12 Falcon 9s (which have
flown) or 2-3 Falcon Heavy launches (which have not flown)."_

It is my impression that SpaceX anticipates doing exactly that sort of thing.

~~~
FrojoS
Elon Musk has said in public, that they hope to build an ultra heavy lift
vehicle which would be more powerful than the Saturn V.

~~~
berntb
That is a direct competition to this new NASA job program. And will probably
cost 10-20% per lbs to orbit?

So NASA now has incentives to kill SpaceX, since they'll never be able to
compete (except with political weight)? :-(

Edit: OTOH, I guess NASA will never make the SLS fly anyway...

------
zzzeek
About six paragraphs that need to mention "cost" or "jobs created", only one
at the bottom that has some actual scientific goals. How far we've fallen

~~~
sliverstorm
It's a symptom of the times. People don't care about science today, they care
about jobs, and NASA is trying to play that tune to keep themselves afloat.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
When have people never cared about jobs? When have they (outside a select few)
ever really cared about Science?

~~~
csomar
When joblessness is 3% and you can (not easily) find a job if you get fired
from another, landing to the moon is quite interesting for you, and for anyone
else.

When you are struggeling to pay the bills, finding a job, or securing your
current job, landing to the moon is a quite stupid thing the USA gov. is
spending the money on.

Although it won't cost the US economy only a little (few billions) comparing
to its size, people won't be easy with it. They are in trouble living in
earth, and are not looking for the moon or massively expensive explorations.

------
bfe
Imagine trying to run a company that has 535 people on the board of directors,
none of whom has equity in the company, but many of whom have de facto equity
in your suppliers.

Maybe NASA should be spun off.

------
mchusma
Nice to see that the most common reaction to this article, even among space
geeks, is that this is a waste of NASA's focus and everyones tax dollars. I
think that bodes well for progress.

~~~
rbanffy
> the most common reaction to this article, even among space geeks

As Richard Feynman once said, "For a successful technology, reality must take
precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled".

------
broot
I'm worried they'll build half of this and then cancel it.

------
coderdude
This is great news! Hopefully the final version isn't as ugly as the artist's
conception:
[http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/galle...](http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/gallery/sls_launching_2.html)

Kind of reminds me of a rocket used for the Apollo missions (although it's
not) with some Space Shuttle SRBs attached to the side. The first version
shown in the video actually looks kind of cool -- like something SpaceX would
have built. It's a good thing progress in the space industry move at a snail's
pace. Our aim is to remain the go-to country for space flight yet the first
mission is slated for 2017.

It looks like they're trying to save some money by using advancements from the
Space Shuttle and Constellation programs. Always a good thing because NASA
projects are notorious for going over their budgets (with good reason).

>>It will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system

A consequence of using previous propulsion tech is that we're still using
dangerous, highly explosive liquid hydrogen and oxygen rockets. I'm still
hoping we're able to get higher ISP from hybrid rockets in the near future.
Much safer and easier to turn off if there is a catastrophic systems failure
on the way up.

~~~
cpeterso
Why are space ships always white? If the designers are not going to use cool
colors, they could at least give the rocket racing stripes or "go Nascar" with
tons of advertisements. :)

~~~
nostromo
A guess: it's because it's easier to spot damage, dust, debris, etc.

~~~
coderdude
Also, in a vacuum does white still absorb the least amount of heat energy from
light?

~~~
ars
The rocket part doesn't go into orbit, only the nose.

------
nickolai
Good news. So they went with the 'fast and expensive' option after all[1](the
'cheap' one was planning on first launches after 2021 instead of 2018).

[1][http://www.space.com/12916-obama-nasa-space-launch-system-
bu...](http://www.space.com/12916-obama-nasa-space-launch-system-budget.html)

------
civilian
I just want a space elevator! However, having a heavy-lifter NASA shuttle will
help the creation of a space elevator.

------
aforty
I know it's not logical but I was disappointed that the new "deep space
exploration system" didn't look like something out of Star Trek. Instead they
made another fucking rocket.

~~~
Synthetase
Barring any significant development in propulsion technologies, they did what
any responsible engineering design team would.

I would obsess less over the form factor and more over efficiency.

------
mkramlich
aka heavy rocket

------
nknight
I have a sophisticated layman's understanding of stuff like orbital mechanics,
launch energies, etc., but one thing I've never been entirely sure of: Why are
rockets always round?

I'm guessing it's the least-questions-asked shape as far as aerodynamics goes,
and gives good weight efficiency assuming you can build what you need into a
round shape. Is there anything more fundamental than that?

~~~
gregatragenet
A rocket is a series of pressure vessels, pressurized fuel tanks, pressurized
crew compartment, etc.. Round shapes spread the pressure around the entire
structure. The ideal shape for pressurized vessel is spherical, however for
aerodynamic reasons cylinders with rounded ends are used.

------
ThaddeusQuay2
Tangentially, given the comments referencing Star Trek and SpaceX, I'd like to
point out that SpaceX lost Scotty's ashes.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launchweb....](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/science/space/03launchweb.html)

~~~
CamperBob
Scotty would've understood, and respected them for trying.

------
RexRollman
Don't get me wrong, I am pro space exploration and love science, but I just
don't see how we can justify spending money on this kind of project with the
economy as it is.

~~~
Jeng
If factories get shut down and re-purposed it costs a lot more to then create
new factories if you need to build that product again at a later date.

Long term wise how can we justify not spending money knowing that we will
spend less in the long run if we spend big in the short term?

