SLS Heavyweight. American astronauts rush to Mars. Ending

The progress of the entire project gives reason to believe that the entire history SLS Americans were only based on the principle “to be” - there seems to be no real need for launching such heavy rockets at the moment. I had to invent them on the go.


So, in the first manifesto of 2013 of the year, only three missions were announced, which were planned before the 2032 of the year. Their list included one launch of a rocket with an unmanned spacecraft in 2017 to fly around the moon (EM-1), a similar mission, only already in 2021 and astronauts on board (EM-2), and finally, in the 2032 area of ​​the year they planned send a drone to mars. The strangeness of this plan is that in order to maintain the reproducibility of the most complex technological processes and to maintain a high level of rocket reliability, space must be sent at least 1 times a year. And here in 15 for years, only three starts ...

2016 has come the year, and with it the sobering up against the background of real results. Inspirational inspirers again revised their plan. Now there is a desire to send a drone to the moon in November 2018 of the year. The automatic ship was supposed to fly to Earth orbit in 25 days, and then go to the Moon and return Orion to Earth. Between the end of 2021 of the year and the beginning of 2023 of the year, the Americans planned to equip a manned mission to the moon under the abbreviation EM-2. In the low orbit of our natural satellite was supposed to spend from 3 to 6 days, but there turned out to be many embodiments. William Gestenmayer, deputy head of NASA for manned programs, once at a meeting of the Agency's Advisory Board announced that the flight could be completed in a special, cost-effective way. In accordance with the idea, the expedition will set off along a trajectory that does not require the inclusion of engines for reaching the circumlunar orbit, and will return on a similar principle. Such a focus even gave the name: “Minimal mission with multiple impulses of departure to the Moon and free return”. Whether this fantasy becomes a reality, time will tell, but for the time being calculations are being made and testing is being prepared in near-Earth space.


Pegasus barge and SLS components.

The EM-6 mission is planned for the most unusual in the history of SLS, as it is aimed at exploring a small near-Earth asteroid previously delivered to the lunar orbit. They want to do this so quickly that they are even ready to send a real live American astronaut instead of a submachine gun. So far these are only plans dated 2016 by the year and having a very shaky foundation. Professor John Johnson Freese of the United States Naval College is pessimistic: “In the coming years, with the new president and Congress, anything can happen. Perhaps because of the government’s decisions, we’ll have to give up dreams of Mars and focus on building a space base somewhere close to home. Some figures in Washington have almost a pathological nostalgia for flying to the moon. ”

Perhaps it was the capture of the asteroid that was the most promising direction for realizing the enormous potential of the SLS - the project would provide an answer to the origin of the solar system. But most importantly, such a race for an asteroid would give skills in repelling an asteroid threat by redirecting space bodies from the Earth or even their destruction. However, Donald Trump came to power, and all good intentions covered up.


Lid hydrogen tank rocket SLS.

Under the new president, infrastructure development was closely pursued. The fact is that SLS Block I has not passed NASA certification for manned flight, and this can take more than one year. Therefore, they are preparing Block IB, which requires a mobile tower for landing astronauts, which also serves as a farm for maintenance. It will also take at least 4 years. And only in March of the current year, after long meetings, we managed to get money for such an expensive project from the Trump administration.

The story of throwing Americans for the purpose of the SLS project does not end there. In September 2017 of the year appeared DSG (Deep Space Gateway) “Portal to deep space”, which was renamed LOP-G (Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway) “Lunar orbital platform - portal” at the beginning of 2018.


Lunar Orbital Platform - Gateway

In accordance with the program, the Americans will build a transshipment base for flights to the Moon (an intermediate stop) and an entire space plant for assembling ships from separate modules. That's it for such hyper-ambitious projects that they decided to reshape the SLS flight program. The strangeness of this whole undertaking in the very need to build such transshipment stations - by space measures to the moon at hand. Why invest billions, if you can fly and one march-throw? Much more logical would be the construction of such an object on the way to Mars, but then the money would be spent on a completely different scale. In general, the whole idea with DSG and late LOP-G seems to be exclusively like the image project of the Trump administration, which may well be abandoned halfway through.

Experts are trying to soberly assess the investments of the American people in the SLS and agree that at least 2017 billion dollars left before 9 year. And all the research and development on the topic of the rocket will be completely transferred to 35 billion dollars. Now NASA already has certain difficulties in work - it is necessary to convince the public of the country that there is absolutely nothing without SLS in space. That is why they rush about in search of the most beautiful outer wrapper of the hyperproject.


Compartment for hydrogen rockets SLS

What are the opponents of the program as counterarguments? The most important thing is the presence of automatic probes that perfectly cope with their unmanned research missions. Why shit such a machine of SLS, if everything is already invented in advance, and if not invented, then it can be implemented with much less investment? Pessimists have calculated that the approximate cost of the launch alone, taking into account all investments, can reach half a billion dollars! Of course, if the SLS bullet more than once a year, the price tag will fall, but in the plans, at best, annual single launches. And the picture with the exploration of Mars looks even more colorful - the current money is definitely not enough, and the approximate cost of delivering astronauts to the Red Planet gets to 1 trillion. dollars!

The idea of ​​“all-powerful private traders” of the Mask type with its SpaceX or Blue Origin, capable of more efficiently and cheaper than state-owned companies to launch anything into space, has become very popular. But this is a myth. Aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing did not enter into a serious business with the state yesterday and do not just swallow billions of budget money. It is precisely the correspondence to the high standards of reliability and safety of NASA that became the “black hole” into which taxpayer dollars go. Private traders, with all due respect, do not have parts of that technological “background” that allows a person to even launch into near space.

What is the positive side of the American public? First, many consider the scientific value of manned missions to Mars much higher than the work of soulless automata. The real meaning of traveling to other planets is to find a new habitat for humans. Therefore, once we still have to change to space heavyweights, so why not do it with SLS? Alternatively, you can build a station for assembling ships to Mars in low-Earth orbit, which will reduce dependence on heavy missiles. But, according to William Gestenmayer, the total mass of the vehicle for delivering astronauts to the Red Planet could exceed 500-600 tons. This raises questions for Falcon Heavy and New Glenn-type rockets, which require 10-12 units against 4 SLS. The “miniature” Delta IV Heavy will generally be able to do this job for 20-28 launches. As long as commercial space will still revolve around purely commercial projects, they are unlikely to be allowed into large programs. And the idea of ​​assembly in orbit is not so perfect. Gestenmayer says in this connection: “For the installation of the ISS, we used“ shuttles ”, and the whole process took several decades. But the biggest drawback of assembly in orbit is the accumulation in a single place of a large number of objects - living quarters, interplanetary ships, fuel storages ... To carry out the assembly work, a huge number of connections will have to be made. It is inevitable that some nodes will not function properly, and it is unlikely that they can be repaired in place. The complexity and risk of operations grows progressively. ”


Tank for hydrogen in full beauty.

“SLS will reduce the flight time to the Jupiter satellite of Europe from six to two and a half years,” said Scott Hubbard, director of the Commercial Programs Innovation Center at Stanford University. “It will be a good help for other, yet impracticable, scientific expeditions.” Indeed, launching an SLS automatic station to explore Europe with the help of SLS is the most viable mission of the American heavyweight. It has enough power to deliver the satellite only at the expense of its own energy, without being distracted by gravitational maneuvers near large objects. And it is very much save time missions.

But it is obvious that the most significant impetus to real work on the SLS will be similar projects in Russia and China, which are so far only in vague plans.

According to the materials of the publication "Rise".
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vard 31 October 2018 05: 43 New
    • 7
    • 13
    -6
    It can be said for a long time about whether they fly or not ... But one thing is certain the film will get an Oscar for this for special effects ...
    1. Henderson 31 October 2018 15: 12 New
      • 4
      • 6
      -2
      special effects will be with the patriots of Russia
  2. g1washntwn 31 October 2018 06: 28 New
    • 0
    • 1
    -1
    in 1 "Blue Origin"
    in 2 I agree that the SLS is more likely an image project with a claim to prove the "exclusivity" of the American nation, regardless of the price tag
    in 3 SLS conceptually not much different from Saturn’s missions, it doesn’t provide a technological leap forward, it looks more like an attempt to dispel the rumors about the Hollywood character of the moon landing as soon as possible
    at 4 for LOP-G it is required to at least stake out the Lagrange point, and as far as we know from our Chinese comrades, such a point is already occupied by the Chinese satellite beyond the Moon, but to park such a station in the Moon’s orbit is energetically expensive
    IMHO, heavy haulage for NASA is necessary for one-time missions, as listed unmanned ones, and manned flights to the Moon and Mars, if they take place, it’s rather one-time, not as scientific missions, but as tourist pokatushki for raising self-esteem
    1. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 08: 45 New
      • 8
      • 2
      +6
      Quote: g1washntwn
      "Blue Origin"

      And what happened to him?
      Quote: g1washntwn
      image project with a claim to prove the "exclusivity" of the American nation despite the price tag

      You described the lunar program
      Quote: g1washntwn
      rather, as an attempt to quickly dispel the rumors about the Hollywood character

      The US Senate is very concerned about the opinion of experts from the Cyrillic segment of the Internet.
      By the way, the lunar conspiracy theories, as far as I know, were invented by American madmen (and even before the 69th year), and the local ones were translated much later, in the time of glasnost. The USSR did not encourage such entertainment.
      Quote: g1washntwn
      LOP-G requires at least staking out the Lagrange point,

      As far as I am informed, DSG has nothing to do with the Lagrange point.
      Quote: g1washntwn
      heavyweight for NASA is needed for one-time missions

      In previous articles of the cycle, the question of the appointment of SLS is adequately addressed. This program relates to space indirectly.

      In September 2017, the DSG (Deep Space Gateway) “Portal into deep space” appeared

      The author is not in the material. The idea of ​​Deep Space Gateway has been obscured for about 10 years. Naturally, the question “what will happen after the ISS” appeared among specialists even when they were preparing to launch the latter.
      1. g1washntwn 6 November 2018 07: 04 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        1. The name was incorrect, corrected
        2. What are the differences between Apollo programs and SLS? yes nothing, all the same rake. The United States does not have enough money for large-scale space exploration in one person, no matter how much it puffed up, maybe it can be for a PR project.
        3. A hundred times sucked on this theory of the lunar conspiracy. The US Senate is no different from other ordinary followers of the pros and cons, it is a matter of faith, not facts. Send a "pioneer" lunar rover there and put an end to.
        4. From the very beginning of the SLS project, NASA has been broadcasting about the inhabited transshipment base at Lagrange Point L2. Later they replayed in the low-orbit, a little later - they began to plan in high orbit. In general, hunting felts were married, or a seed ... And not so long ago, the Chinese announced that their companion had reached point L2, they stuck their flag.
        5. The ISS as an international project is blown away, tourists will be transported to the end and flooded in the ocean. The complication of the international situation cannot but affect such projects. For visibility, they depict collaboration, but nothing more. The Americans are trying to throw everyone into a new race and spur. And we need to "go slowly and fertilize the whole herd" ...
  3. Fedorov 31 October 2018 06: 46 New
    • 2
    • 6
    -4
    Well, that’s it. I read the "news in the morning, I will watch" star wars all day, how many episodes are there? I won’t go to work. I'm going to sell a car and buy a telescope, and a star atlas.
    Although, in truth, the Father had a subject in his report card for school - astronomy. And now figs who will heal Orion from Kasyopei. .. Although it can be seen so.
  4. sleeve 31 October 2018 08: 08 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    The EM-6 mission is planned for the most unusual in the history of SLS, as it is aimed at the study of a small near-Earth asteroid, previously delivered to the orbit of the moon

    Stop! I heard about this from a dozen years ago. As a simple layman prone to cynical distrust, all the more so in relation to American science I will ask a stupid question. Who allowed to "hang" a stone over our heads of incomprehensible size and weight? What is this "creative"? Maybe someone will give me a guarantee that the USA has professionalism in calculating the orbital vectors of a large body, obviously not ready to burn in the atomosphere in the event of a fall? Are we looking at this? So we have 14% of the land surface belongs to us. What kind of jokes is that?
    1. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 08: 34 New
      • 8
      • 0
      +8
      small near-Earth asteroid previously delivered to the orbit of the moon

      Quote: sleeve
      "hang" a stone over our heads

      Are you a sleepwalker?
      Quote: sleeve
      Are we looking at this?

      And who will ask you?
      1. sleeve 31 October 2018 10: 01 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        "Orbit of the Moon", not "Moonlight". Do not care that they do not ask. I’m not talking about the verbal reaction to them, I don’t see the point in it. About our technical.
  5. Ros 56 31 October 2018 08: 32 New
    • 1
    • 6
    -5
    To Mars is good, but I think it would not be sick to learn how to fly just into space into low Earth orbit on its ships and on its engines. A ponty pound, it's not tossing bags.
    1. Henderson 31 October 2018 15: 13 New
      • 1
      • 3
      -2
      and don’t turn trampolines
  6. Hole puncher 31 October 2018 09: 06 New
    • 5
    • 1
    +4
    The aerospace giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing did not enter serious business with the state yesterday and are not just swallowing billions of budget money.

    These giants are too impudent and specifically twist testicles to the state. Not having serious competition, they openly overstate the cost of work and dictate their conditions. The author is skeptical of Mask and Bezos, but he cannot but admit that their activities shook the giants and forced them to reconsider their pricing policy.
    This raises questions for missiles such as Falcon Heavy and New Glenn, which will require 10-12 pieces against 4 SLS.

    If 12 Falcon Heavy will be cheaper than 4 SLS, then why do we need SLS? 90 million for Falcon Heavy versus 500 million for SLS, this 1 to 5 ratio is clearly not in favor of SLS.
    1. voyaka uh 31 October 2018 11: 00 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Falcon Heavy has a Pentagon flight scheduled for November. Let's see how it goes. And there is another commemorative contract for 2019 from the Swedes.
      1. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 11: 55 New
        • 5
        • 0
        +5
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Falcon Heavy has a Pentagon flight scheduled for November. Let's see how it goes.

        No way. Moved to March. Arabsat is still standing in January. For the 20th year, the launches of the Swedes and the military are planned, another one in doubt.
    2. tarakanys 31 October 2018 13: 20 New
      • 3
      • 4
      -1
      Analysts predicted the company Ilona Mask record losses, but in fact she showed a record profit in the quarterly report. But for the car market as a whole, this is pretty bad news.
      Most recently, Wall Street analysts predicted Tesla quarterly losses of about $ 100 million and sales of $ 5,7 billion. They had for this reason - back in the last quarter, the company's losses amounted to $ 700 million, sales - only $ 4 billion.

      Life decreed otherwise. The company, Ilona Mask, earned $ 312 million in revenue for sales of $ 6,8 billion, according to third-quarter reporting released yesterday. Revenue grew by 70% for the quarter. But, perhaps, not even these figures are the main thing in the Tesla report. More important was another: the story of the struggle of electric vehicles for existence is drawing to a close. Model 3, the company's new and cheaper car, has become a leader in US dollar sales. No other passenger car, not related to crossovers and pickups, even came close to the results of Model 3.
  7. Larum 31 October 2018 09: 22 New
    • 9
    • 1
    +8
    Ha! Ours then promised to the moon to rush first at 16m, 18-19m, now in the 27th year. And to Mars too.

    Amers can only learn how to promise.
    1. Conductor 31 October 2018 10: 02 New
      • 6
      • 1
      +5
      ha, and the retirement age was promised not to raise, and that time the present. And Mars, why do we need Mars, if Siberia has not yet been mastered.
    2. bratchanin3 31 October 2018 10: 34 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Amers can only learn how to promise

      Or maybe they lure the Americans ?! Well, why did this moon surrender to Russia? Let Americans spend their money on the Moon and Mars (if hegemony cannot be obtained from them) rather than on weapons.
      1. voyaka uh 31 October 2018 11: 13 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Mars, indeed, is more a matter of prestige and technological ambition. But the moon?
        Profits are planned here. “Dirty” industries can be brought to the moon, and robotic plants can be built for industries where low gravity is an advantage. And there is no need to keep many people there. Only send repairmen, sometimes.
        1. Larum 31 October 2018 11: 35 New
          • 2
          • 2
          0
          Crap. There are no industries or industries. Discussed many times

          But flights really move science.
        2. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 11: 57 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Dirty industries can be brought to the moon

          Why do you need the moon for all this? Why is the orbit bad?
          1. voyaka uh 31 October 2018 12: 43 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            The size. There will be no room for factories at the orbital station.
            Need to build hangars. And this is only on the surface.
            1. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 13: 32 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: voyaka uh
              Need to build hangars

              What the hell? Why do you not like inflatable modules, for example?
              Quote: voyaka uh
              it is only on the surface.

              If all your industry will be from Earth to Earth, then the complexity of logistics in orbit and on the moon corresponds to the difference between the Union and Saturn 5.
              It is rational to do something on the Moon exclusively in cases where either raw materials or products are obtained / used on the Moon.
  8. bratchanin3 31 October 2018 10: 29 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Such a waste of money should be encouraged in every possible way, and not to prove that it is not rational. Well, let them build themselves, maybe that will turn out, which I deeply doubt, but they will spend the money and sit in a "puddle."
  9. iouris 31 October 2018 13: 36 New
    • 0
    • 3
    -3
    In the USSR, the state openly stood behind any economic or technological project. In a "market state" this is impossible, therefore, there are two ways for the state (USA) to participate in the creation of technologies: justification and preparation for war (sometimes war) and the prestigious "national project". The “Lunar Program” made it possible to create fundamentally new technologies at the expense of the state budget, but this is not proof that the astronauts were on the moon. It is possible that the USSR for a short time became a leader in space in order to substantiate the "Lunar Program". It is not for nothing that academician Glushkov seems to be credited with the words: “I know everything about the Moon, I know what rocket is needed to fly, how much it will cost .... I don’t know one thing: what for is all this needed.” That Kennedy knew.
    1. Cherry Nine 31 October 2018 14: 11 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      Quote: iouris
      That Kennedy knew.

      Many years ago, the great English climber George Mallory, who died while climbing the highest point on the planet, was asked: “Why are you going to Everest?” He replied: "Because he is."

      So it is here: we strive to conquer the cosmos simply because it is. The Universe, the Solar system, the Moon is an unknown world that gives us hope for new knowledge and well-being. We set off on a long journey, and God bless us, because this is the most dangerous and greatest journey in the history of mankind.

      1. iouris 2 November 2018 00: 55 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        we strive to conquer space

        Throwing pebbles into the water, do not forget to watch the circles formed by them, otherwise throwing pebbles becomes empty fun.
        It is not the United States that destroyed its state, but the “pioneers of space” (twice in 70 years). I am worried about the future of the population of the successor to the USSR.
  10. zenion 31 October 2018 14: 12 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    The movie is already there. Waiting for a command to run.
    1. Henderson 31 October 2018 15: 14 New
      • 1
      • 2
      -1
      well, at least not just another cartoon
  11. NordUral 31 October 2018 15: 14 New
    • 1
    • 1
    0
    Bright prospects and a dark story with a smell from the "conquest" of the moon.
  12. akudr48 31 October 2018 18: 52 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    The article analyzes the state of affairs in the American space industry. Not evaluating the content in essence, I want to note that such publications, with the linking of the purely technical aspects of rocketry to the goals and plans of NASA, are not visible in Russia.

    Maybe something is secretly being done by our Korolev - Rogozin, and then kaaak we’ll run something on a trampoline somewhere and the whole world will startle from our successes. And whoever does not flinch, throw his caps and turn off the gas and don’t take him to the moon.

    In the meantime, slowly, with such thieving leaders, but surely let China, Europe, even India forward ...
    1. iouris 2 November 2018 00: 57 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      They steal exclusively for disguise. And so that the opponents could not solve and oppose.
  13. avisv 31 October 2018 19: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Heavyweight from Earth is a dead end! Heavyweight is economically justified only from the near-moon cosmodrome.
  14. DimerVladimer 1 November 2018 16: 02 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    a race for an asteroid would give skills in repelling an asteroid threat by redirecting space bodies from the Earth or even destroying them


    Well, in vain - God forbid, that it would not be too late to do this ... Do the Americans eat up too randomly?

    In accordance with the program, the Americans will build a transshipment base for flights to the moon (intermediate stop) and a whole space plant for assembling ships from separate modules.


    This is logical - for distant space flights to lift a massive ship from the ground is difficult, it is easier to build it from modules and refuel in orbit.

    The strangeness of this whole undertaking in the very necessity of building such transshipment stations is, by cosmic standards, a stone's throw away. Why invest billions if it is quite possible to fly with one march? It would be much more logical to build such an object on the way to Mars, but here the money would be spent on a completely different scale.


    This is not weird
    1 is the development of assembly technology in orbit.
    2. A ship flying to the Moon and returning to a support base in the Earth’s orbit - it does not need to be burned every time in the atmosphere to return - becomes a reusable system. It will be necessary to refuel it, add another lunar landing module, replenish water and provisions, it is even possible to change something from the composition of the remote control.
    To do this, you need to design the ship’s design modular with the ability to replace / add mozhulya in orbit. By adding modular units with fuel, food and water, possibly with the expansion of the life support system, it is possible to build a flexible transport reusable system.
    3. Again, the experience of servicing a reusable ship in orbit after long voyages will be required - and it’s easier to try it on a small lunar ship as part of several missions, make changes (and they will probably be needed with experience) than immediately begin to make an order of magnitude more complex Martian ship.
    In general, the topic is not new - it was widely discussed back in the 70s and 80s.
  15. Ber
    Ber 3 November 2018 09: 10 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    American astronauts are eager for Mars.


    The feed will crack, these astronauts.
    A donut hole (TOR) in the liver will get NASA and not Mars.
  16. Dzafdet 4 November 2018 17: 35 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    If capitalists instead of wars rushed into space, then we would have long mastered the solar system .. But alas, again, stealth aircraft, new nuclear warheads and other mutoten ... am
  17. wooja 20 December 2018 12: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    on weakly they want to untwist us, the author zhzhot