NASA unveils 'the most powerful rocket ever built'

[Eugene]

Source: Engadget

NASA unveils 'the most powerful rocket ever built'

Better late than never.

Georgina Torbet, @georginatorbet
9h ago in Space

NASA's Space Launch System, or SLS, aims to carry astronauts to the moon in 2024 as part of the Artemis project. This weekend at the Michoud Assembly Facility in New Orleans, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine gave the public its first up-close look at the system, which he described as "the most powerful rocket ever built."

The SLS has just completed its latest round of testing. To test the fuel tank, a test rig structurally like the real SLS liquid hydrogen tank was subjected to compression, tension and bending forces and its structural integrity was measured by thousands of sensors which detected stress, pressure and temperature. NASA also used cameras and microphones to identify any buckles in the tank.

Jim Bridenstine
@JimBridenstine

Success! Engineers @NASA_Marshall tested the @NASA_SLS liquid hydrogen test article tank to failure – the tank withstood more than 260% of expected flight loads before buckling and rupturing!

Link to tweet

The tank was pushed to its limit and failed at the point predicted by the analysts, which is good news for the models used by NASA. With the tank passing this test, the assembly and testing of the SLS core stage is now complete.

The SLS program is running rather behind schedule, with launch originally aimed for 2019 and a possible manned first mission being considered. Now, the first test of the SLS is aimed for 2021, to be ready for the Artemis mission to the moon in 2024.

https://www.engadget.com/2019/12/10/nasa-sls-rocket-ever-unveiled

[packman]

2. I know Buzz would be excited

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

3. After seeing PBS series on the race to the moon.... this thing makes me kinda nervous

There was some brilliant film editting early in episode 1 which was a series of rocket launch flops to illustrate whata monumental struggle it was to get a rocket in the air, let alone to the moon. Rockets would explode on the launch pad, rise up a little ways then explode, tip over sideways and break up, rise up a ways and then fall down, , etc. etc, that whole sequence is indelibly etched in my memory.

For every success there was a considerable amount of failure. And yet we persevered

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/chasing-moon/

[sts069]

5. Heritage helps

Whether or not you think SLS is a good idea (disclaimer: I used to work on SLS and associated systems), its reliability (in the everyday sense) is helped by reuse of key elements: namely the boosters, which are basically extended Shuttle solid rocket motors, and the core stage engines, which are literally reused and updated Space Shuttle Main Engines. In fact, the four core stage engines to be used on EM-1 have already boosted Shuttles into space. Also, the Orion capsule design has flown once successfully (lofted by a Delta IV Heavy), and of course the ground segment, though heavily modified, goes back to Apollo in its operational concept and major elements like the VAB and Crawler.

[AtheistCrusader]

6. Which totally explains why it will cost up to 1.6 billion dollars per launch.

It's basically the shuttle stack, with the engines moved to the bottom of the LOX tank, and an Apollo-like vehicle on top. Very innovative.

The fully-expendable variant of Falcon Heavy is $150 million per launch.
SLS is a ridiculously stupid waste of money. It won't even exceed Falcon Heavy payload until the block-3 variant is complete, which will have new engines, not the mothballed shuttle program engines.

[sts069]

7. Correction

Incorrect with regard to payload; SLS Block 1 (being built now) will have a greater payload loft than FH.

With regard to innovation, there’s only so much that a rocket can do to be innovative. It’s going to be pointy at the top and have engines at the bottom. And yes, Falcon Heavy is more innovative, but it is also not constrained to use existing infrastructure and technologies like SLS was required to use.

Which doesn’t change your point about cost, mind you, I’m just pointing out that SpaceX was able to clean-sheet as needed while leveraging decades of NASA and commercial innovation. But SLS will be the most powerful space launch vehicle in existence; we’ll just have to see how many times it actually flies without a well-funded manned exploration program to justify it.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. SLS's requirements were fungible too. They spend 2bn to upgrade just the launch pad to support it.

But I see that you are correct, last I looked, the SLS block 1 was around 60 tons to LEO, and they seem to have raised that considerably. 90 tons is considerable. (Ugh, I just realized how terribly American I am... tons...)

I would argue anything that needs the difference in payload between the two launch platforms should just be broken into two pieces and launched separately and swim around in the money you save, but I suppose some things can't be broken down.

[wolfie001]

4. I thought this was interesting

Quick google search brought me this info:

"The journey to Alpha Centauri B orbit would take about 100 years, at an average velocity of approximately 13,411 km/s (about 4.5% the speed of light) and another 4.39 years would be necessary for the data to reach Earth."

Star Trek solved this conundrum by making up their "warp speed" concept. Ha ha