MOSCOW, April 24 (RIA Novosti) – A project to build a new super-heavy carrier rocket was included into the draft new Federal Space Program (FSP) Roscosmos chief Oleg Ostapenko said on Thursday.
“A [super] heavy carrier rocket was included into the new FSP. Work is still under way, with the first stage envisaging the construction of a rocket capable of lifting from 70 to 80 metric tons,” Ostapenko said, adding that such rockets would be enough for projects scheduled for the next 20 or 30 years.
The second stage of the project is to build a carrier rocket capable of lifting from 100 to 120 metric tons of payload into the low-earth orbit.
A year ago, Russia said that it will develop new technology including huge new rockets for manned flights to the moon and Mars, by the same year that the Americans are aiming for Mars – 2030.
Super-heavy rockets are necessary for manned Mars or deep space missions, although they are likely to be uneconomical for commercial payloads that can be launched on existing rockets.
Roscosmos formed a working group last year to evaluate proposals for a heavy-lift rocket, including the revival of the Energia launcher, the highest payload rocket ever built in the country.
The Energia, developed in the Soviet Union and launched twice, was cancelled during the economic crisis twenty years ago.
Boeing [NYSE: BA] has finalized a contract with NASA to develop the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built and destined to propel America's return to human exploration of deep space.
The $2.8 billion contract validates Boeing's earlier selection as the prime contractor on the SLS core stage, including the avionics, under an undefinitized contract authorization. In addition, Boeing has been tasked to study the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, which will further expand mission range and payload capabilities.
The agreement comes as NASA and the Boeing team complete the Critical Design Review (CDR) on the core stage - the last major review before full production begins.
"Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time," said Virginia Barnes, Boeing SLS vice president and program manager. "We are passionate about NASA's mission to explore deep space. It's a very personal mission, as well as a national mandate."
During the CDR, which began June 2, experts examined and confirmed the final design of the rocket's cryogenic stages that will hold liquefied hydrogen and oxygen. This milestone marks NASA's first CDR on a deep-space human exploration launch vehicle since 1961, when the Saturn V rocket underwent a similar design review as the United States sought to land an astronaut on the moon. Boeing participated in that CDR as well, as the three stages of the Saturn V were built by Boeing and its heritage companies Douglas Aircraft and North American Aviation.
Boeing [NYSE: BA] has finalized a contract with NASA to develop the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS), the most powerful rocket ever built and destined to propel America's return to human exploration of deep space.
The $2.8 billion contract validates Boeing's earlier selection as the prime contractor on the SLS core stage, including the avionics, under an undefinitized contract authorization. In addition, Boeing has been tasked to study the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, which will further expand mission range and payload capabilities.
The agreement comes as NASA and the Boeing team complete the Critical Design Review (CDR) on the core stage - the last major review before full production begins.
"Our teams have dedicated themselves to ensuring that the SLS - the largest ever -- will be built safely, affordably and on time," said Virginia Barnes, Boeing SLS vice president and program manager. "We are passionate about NASA's mission to explore deep space. It's a very personal mission, as well as a national mandate."
During the CDR, which began June 2, experts examined and confirmed the final design of the rocket's cryogenic stages that will hold liquefied hydrogen and oxygen. This milestone marks NASA's first CDR on a deep-space human exploration launch vehicle since 1961, when the Saturn V rocket underwent a similar design review as the United States sought to land an astronaut on the moon. Boeing participated in that CDR as well, as the three stages of the Saturn V were built by Boeing and its heritage companies Douglas Aircraft and North American Aviation.
Just want to say that you can find a nice PDF file on NASA's webpage talking about all of the wonderful spin-off technologies that were developed as a result of NASA's space programs here.
My favourite are the automated hospital robots that mill around getting people things . Its based on work done on NASA's rover technology that they're using in missions to Mars. I think Sunprince and Whitewing made a very convincing argument. In theory we could also fund many other areas in science; but it also makes no sense to artificially limit ourselves to only those areas and ignore all of the potential benefits to be gained through space exploration/colonization, and the government is the only entity with enough funds and long-term vision to sustain these types of projects.
Though it is very relevant to ask whether at this point in time NASA can accomplish much more than it already has. But I think the Asteroid reclamation project, if it goes through, would be a sufficiently new step to continue to birth new and interesting technologies, while simultaneously bringing us closer to the dream of colonizing other planets or mining asteroids for their rich resources. As long as we are making progress instead of launching rockets into space to do things we've already done then NASA still has a valuable role to play.
But regardless, the cultists in the Congress demand that NASA build the "Space Launch System," larger than the Saturn V that took men to the moon. There is no designated mission for it, and Congress hasn't properly funded any hardware that will actually fly on it, other than the Apollo-like Orion capsule. NASA's own plans have it flying once every couple years, a costly and very unreliable flight tempo and, like Apollo, costing billions per flight. Though the agency's own internal studies indicate that SLS-based plans are the most costly way to send humans into the solar system, the important thing to Congress is that it looks like Apollo, and not-so-coincidentally maintains jobs in the states and districts of those on the space committees.
Meanwhile, SpaceX has already shown the way to low-cost launch and plans to blazing a path to even lower costs through reusability, more in keeping with von Braun's original, more affordable vision until it was derailed by Apollo.
After over four decades, it is time to stop awaiting a repeat of a glorious but limited and improbable past. We must, finally, return to and embrace the true future, in which the solar system and ultimately the universe is opened up to all, with affordable, competing commercial transportation systems, in the way that only Americans can do it.
(AP)—NASA does not have enough money to get its new, $12 billion rocket system off the ground by the end of 2017 as planned, federal auditors say.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report Wednesday saying NASA's Space Launch System is at "high risk of missing" its planned December 2017 initial test flight. The post-space shuttle program would build the biggest rockets ever—larger than the Saturn V rockets which sent men to the moon—to send astronauts to asteroids and Mars.
"They can't meet the date with the money they have," report author Cristina Chaplain said. She said it wasn't because the space agency had technical problems with the congressionally-required program, but that NASA didn't get enough money to carry out the massive undertaking.
The GAO report put the current shortfall at $400 million, but did say NASA was "making solid progress" on the rocket program design.
NASA's launch system officials told the GAO that there was a 90 percent chance of not hitting the launch date at this time.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
On August 07 2011 02:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: More proof that as of right now NASA has no actual/reliable plan to return to Space.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
So the space station is a hoax too then by that logic? The thing we can see in orbit from earth? T_T
On August 07 2011 02:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: More proof that as of right now NASA has no actual/reliable plan to return to Space.
WASHINGTON — The rocket and capsule that NASA is proposing to return astronauts to the moon would fly just twice in the next 10 years and cost as much as $38 billion, according to internal NASA documents obtained by the Orlando Sentinel.
The money would pay for a new heavy-lift rocket and Apollo-like crew capsule that eventually could take astronauts to the moon and beyond. But it would not be enough to pay for a lunar landing — or for more than one manned test flight, in 2021.
That timeline and price tag could pose serious problems for supporters of the new spacecraft, which is being built from recycled parts of the shuttle and the now-defunct Constellation moon program. It effectively means that it will take the U.S. manned-space program more than 50 years — if ever — to duplicate its 1969 landing on the moon.
NASA's credibility regarding the moon landings declines with each passing year. no pictures of the 5 landing sites... that giant LRO debacle with those horrible gray scale pictures.
we have satellites that can look 13 billion light years into deep space and no pictures of any of the 5 landing sites.... ok guys.
i don't think NASA will put a man on the moon with rocket powered tech... they also need something to simulate gravity as they travel to the moon. the various human circulatory systems need gravity to work.
If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
The biggest nail in the coffin for landing deniers is that the Soviets said nothing. If there was ANY evidence at all that the landing was faked, they would've been all over that shit. But they said nothing. They, and many amateur radio enthusiasts followed Apollo 11 every step of the way, none of the transmissions were in code or encrypted or anything, anybody with a nice CB radio could listen in.
Also about the SLS budget short fall, this puts SpaceX 2 and a half years even 3, if testing is delayed, ahead of NASA. The Falcon Super Heavy testing site is already under construction and the engines itself are being built.
On July 27 2014 11:44 Millitron wrote: If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
(G)(m1)(m2)/r^2 is pretty close on the ISS as it is on the surface of the earth... the FORCE the earth is exerting on you has nothing to do with your APPARENT VELOCITY inside a space station.
now 2/3's of the way to the moon... you have 2 very weak gravity sources pulling you in opposite directions. force is a vector right? a completely different situation then being 250 km off the earth's surface... where the earth is a single prime source of gravitational pull .. just like standing on earth.
plug the #s in yourself... i'm too lazy.
as for the other guy saying the entire space program is a hoax... i disagree. the shuttle flights were all real... all the deaths were genuine. challenger did blow up into a bazillion pieces .... and so did Columbia. that stuff is all legit.
flying 250 km off the earth's surface is 100% legit... NASA deserves credit for attaining that difficult milestone. .. its been repeated many times by many independent organizations.
had no one travelled in an airplane more than 10 KM ... for the next 50 years after Lindbergh crossed the Atlantic ocean... i would have doubted Lindbergh's claim he did so.. but , i think that is legit.. i think Lindbergh did it... back in 1927
most of NASA's stuff is legit.. but like many large organizations there is some bullshit.
NASA and its various chronies keep saying "we are going back" .. they've been blabbing about it since 1989.
Here Buzz promises they'll be back to the moon by 2010
Buzz is a lousy liar... NASA has much better liars than him.. they should tell Buzz to shut up.
On July 27 2014 11:44 Millitron wrote: If the human circulatory system needs gravity to work, how do you explain the ISS, or that you can hang upside-down and not die?
(G)(m1)(m2)/r^2 is pretty close on the ISS as it is on the surface of the earth... the FORCE the earth is exerting on you has nothing to do with your APPARENT VELOCITY inside a space station.
now 2/3's of the way to the moon... you have 2 very weak gravity sources pulling you in opposite directions. force is a vector right? a completely different situation then being 250 km off the earth's surface... where the earth is a single prime source of gravitational pull .. just like standing on earth.
I would assume that everyone literate enough to sign up for and account on TL knows that this is nonsense, but the very existence of this post proves me wrong, so just to be clear: this is nonsense. As long as your body is reasonably small with respect to the inhomogeneity of the gravitational field in question, there is absolutely zero difference between being in a place without gravitational fields and freefalling in one (and orbiting a planet is essentially freefalling) - that's the famous Einstein's principle upon which the whole General Relativity is built (neverthless it it quite obviously true even in Newton's mechanics).
JJR: If you want to question the Moon landing, you can be my guest, but next time (which seems to be after at least two weeks for you) please learn high school physics first.
NASA officials Wednesday announced they have completed a rigorous review of the Space Launch System (SLS) — the heavy-lift, exploration class rocket under development to take humans beyond Earth orbit and to Mars — and approved the program’s progression from formulation to development, something no other exploration class vehicle has achieved since the agency built the space shuttle.
“We are on a journey of scientific and human exploration that leads to Mars,” said NASA Administrator Charles Bolden. “And we’re firmly committed to building the launch vehicle and other supporting systems that will take us on that journey.”
For its first flight test, SLS will be configured for a 70-metric-ton (77-ton) lift capacity and carry an uncrewed Orion spacecraft beyond low-Earth orbit. In its most powerful configuration, SLS will provide an unprecedented lift capability of 130 metric tons (143 tons), which will enable missions even farther into our solar system, including such destinations as an asteroid and Mars.
This decision comes after a thorough review known as Key Decision Point C (KDP-C), which provides a development cost baseline for the 70-metric ton version of the SLS of $7.021 billion from February 2014 through the first launch and a launch readiness schedule based on an initial SLS flight no later than November 2018.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1InZCof.png)
. Its based on work done on NASA's rover technology that they're using in missions to Mars. I think Sunprince and Whitewing made a very convincing argument. In theory we could also fund many other areas in science; but it also makes no sense to artificially limit ourselves to only those areas and ignore all of the potential benefits to be gained through space exploration/colonization, and the government is the only entity with enough funds and long-term vision to sustain these types of projects.
