Space Launch System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search
This article is about the NASA rocket family. For the similarly-named US Air Force
project of the 1960s, see Space Launching System. For Turkey's UFS satellite
launcher, see Space Launch System (Turkey).
Space Launch System
Sls block1 on-pad sunrisesmall.jpg
Artist's rendering of SLS Block 1/Orion
Function Super heavy-lift launch vehicle
Country of origin United States
Project cost US$7 billion (2014�18, 2014 estimate),[1] to
$35 billion (until 2025, 2011 est.)[2][3][better source needed]
Size
Height 111.25 m (365 ft 0 in), Block 2 Cargo
Diameter 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in), Core Stage
Stages 2
Capacity
Payload to LEO
Block 1: 95 t (209,000 lb)[4]
Block 2: 130 t (290,000 lb)[5]
Payload to Moon
Block 1: > 26,000 kg (57,000 lb)[6]
Block 1B Crew: 34,000�37,000 kg (75,000�82,000 lb)[6]
Block 1B Cargo: 37,000�40,000 kg (82,000�88,000 lb)[6]
Block 2: > 45,000 kg (99,000 lb)[6]
Launch history
Status Under development
Launch sites LC-39B, Kennedy Space Center
First flight Artemis 1
June 2020 (planned)[7]
Notable payloads Orion MPCV, Europa Clipper, LOP-Gateway Station components
Boosters (Block 1, 1B)
No. boosters 2 five-segment Solid Rocket Boosters
Thrust 16,000 kN (3,600,000 lbf)
Total thrust 32,000 kN (7,200,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 269 seconds (2.64 km/s) (vacuum)[citation needed]
Burn time 126 seconds
Fuel PBAN, APCP
First stage (Block 1, 1B, 2) � Core Stage
Length 64.6 m (211 ft 11 in)
Diameter 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Empty mass 85,270 kg (187,990 lb)
Gross mass 979,452 kg (2,159,322 lb)
Engines 4 RS-25D/E[8]
Thrust 7,440 kN (1,670,000 lbf)
Specific impulse 363 seconds (3.56 km/s) (sea level), 452 seconds (4.43 km/s)
(vacuum)
Fuel LH2 / LOX
Second stage (Block 1) � ICPS
Length 13.7 m (44 ft 11 in)
Diameter 5 m (16 ft 5 in)
Empty mass 3,490 kg (7,690 lb)
Gross mass 30,710 kg (67,700 lb)
Engines 1 RL10B-2
Thrust 110.1 kN (24,800 lbf)
Specific impulse 462 seconds (4.53 km/s)
Burn time 1125 seconds
Fuel LH2 / LOX
Second stage (Block 1B, Block 2) � Exploration Upper Stage
Diameter 8.4 m (27 ft 7 in)
Engines 4 RL10
Thrust 440 kN (99,000 lbf)
Fuel LH2 / LOX
The Space Launch System (SLS) is a US super heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle
currently under development. It is the primary launch vehicle of NASA's deep space
exploration plans,[9][10] including the planned crewed lunar flights of the Artemis
program and a possible follow-on human mission to Mars.[11][12][13]

The initial SLS Block 1 is required by the US Congress to lift a payload of 95

metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), and will launch Artemis 1, Artemis 2, and
Artemis 3 on a circumlunar trajectory. The later Block 1B is intended to debut the
Exploration Upper Stage and launch the notional Artemis 4�8.[14] Block 2 is planned
to replace the initial Shuttle-derived boosters with advanced boosters and would
have a LEO capability of more than 130 metric tons, again as required by Congress.
[15] Block 2 is intended to enable crewed launches to Mars.[13] The SLS will launch
the Orion Crew and Service Module and use the ground operations and launch
facilities at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida.

Contents
1 Vehicle description
1.1 Core Stage
1.2 Boosters
1.2.1 Block 1 and 1B boosters
1.2.2 Block 2 advanced boosters (late 2020s)
1.3 Upper Stage
1.3.1 ICPS - Block 1
1.3.2 EUS - Block 1B and 2
1.4 Payload carrying capacity
2 Development history
2.1 Program history
2.2 Funding history
2.3 Constellation
2.4 Early SLS
2.5 Current SLS
3 Criticism
4 Proposed SLS flights
5 Gallery
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
Vehicle description

Artist's rendering of SLS Block 1B

The SLS is a Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle and will have the ability to tolerate a
minimum of 13 tanking cycles due to launch scrubs and other launch delays before
launch. The assembled rocket is to be able to remain at the launch pad for a
minimum of 180 days and can remain in stacked configuration for at least 200 days.
[16]

Core Stage
The Space Launch System's Core Stage will be 8.4 meters (28 ft) in diameter and
mount a Main Propulsion System (MPS) incorporating four RS-25 engines.[8][17] The
core stage will be structurally similar to the Space Shuttle external tank,[18][19]
and initial flights will use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space
Shuttle program.[20] Later flights will switch to a cheaper version of the engine
not intended for reuse.[21]
The core stage will be fabricated at the Michoud Assembly Facility[22] and is
common across all currently planned evolutions of the SLS to avoid the need for
substantial redesigns to meet various payload mandates.[23][24][17][25]

Boosters
File:Space Launch System Booster Passes Major Ground Test.webm
SLS Booster test at Orbital ATK/Northrop Grumman's desert facility northwest of
Ogden, Utah, March 2015
Block 1 and 1B boosters
Blocks 1 and 1B of the SLS will use two five-segment Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs)
based on the four-segment Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters. Modifications to the
five-segment boosters included the addition of a center booster segment, new
avionics, and lighter insulation. The five-segment SRBs provide approximately 25%
more total impulse than the Shuttle SRB and will not be recovered after use.[26]
[27]

Block 2 advanced boosters (late 2020s)

The advanced boosters for Block 2[28] were intended to be selected through the
Advanced Booster Competition, which was to be held in 2015.[8][29]

Several companies proposed boosters for this competition:

Aerojet, in partnership with Teledyne Brown, offered a booster powered by three new
AJ1E6 LOX/RP-1 oxidizer-rich staged combustion engines, each producing 4,900 kN
(1,100,000 lbf) thrust using a single turbopump to supply dual combustion chambers.
[30] On 14 February 2013, Aerojet was awarded a $23.3 million, 30-month contract to
build a 2,400 kN (550,000 lbf) main injector and thrust chamber.[31]
Alliant Techsystems (ATK) proposed an advanced SRB nicknamed "Dark Knight", which
would switch to a lighter composite case, use a more energetic propellant, and
reduce the number of segments from five to four.[32]
Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Dynetics proposed a liquid-fueled booster named
Pyrios.[33]
In 2013, the manager of NASA's SLS advanced development office indicated that all
three approaches were viable.[34]

However, the 2015 competition was planned in support of Block 1A. A later study
found that the advanced booster would have resulted in unsuitably high
acceleration,[35] and NASA cancelled Block 1A and the planned competition in 2014.
[36][37] In February 2015, it was reported that SLS is expected to fly with the
five-segment SRB until at least the late 2020s, and modifications to Launch Pad
39B, its flame trench, and SLS's Mobile Launcher Platform were being evaluated.[36]

Upper Stage

An RL10 engine, like the one pictured above, will be used as the second stage
engine in both the ICPS and EUS upper stages.
ICPS - Block 1
Block 1, scheduled to fly Artemis 1 in June 2020,[7] will use the Interim Cryogenic
Propulsion Stage (ICPS), a modified Delta IV 5�meter Delta Cryogenic Second Stage
(DCSS) powered by a single RL10B-2.[38] Block 1 will be capable of lifting 95 t to
LEO in this configuration if the ICPS is considered part of the payload.[4] Artemis
1 will be launched into an initial 1,800 km by -93 km suborbital trajectory to
ensure safe disposal of the core stage. ICPS will then perform an orbital insertion
burn at apogee and a subsequent translunar injection burn to send Orion towards the
moon.[39]

EUS - Block 1B and 2

The Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) was scheduled to fly initially on Artemis 2.
Similar to the S-IVB, the EUS would have completed the SLS ascent phase and then
re-ignited to send its payload to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit.[40] It was
expected to be used by Block 1B and Block 2, share the core stage diameter of 8.4
meters, and be powered by four RL10 engines.[41]

The Artemis 2 flight may fly earlier than planned. In this case it will launch on
the less-capable ICPS.[42]

Payload carrying capacity

See also: Super heavy-lift launch vehicle � Comparison
SLS variant Payload mass to ... (metric tons)
low Earth orbit (LEO) trans-lunar injection (TLI) heliocentric orbit (HCO)
Block 1 95 t[4] 26 t[4]
Block 1B 105 t[43] 37 t[4]
Block 2 130 t[5] 45 t[4]
Development history
Diagram of four versions of the Space Launch System rocket
The planned evolution of the Space Launch System
SLS is to replace the retired Space Shuttle as NASA's flagship vehicle. Following
the cancellation of the Constellation program, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010
envisioned a single launch vehicle usable for both crew and cargo. SLS is to have
the world's highest ever total thrust at launch,[44][45] but not the world's
highest ever payload mass.[46][47][48] However, with modern technology the SLS is
arguably the most capable heavy lift vehicle built.[18][49]

Program history
During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the
SLS program had a projected development cost of $18 billion through 2017, with $10
billion for the SLS rocket, $6 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and
$2 billion for upgrades to the launch pad and other facilities at Kennedy Space
Center.[50][51] These costs and schedule were considered optimistic in an
independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[52]

An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to
total at least $41bn for four 95 t launches (1 uncrewed, 3 crewed),[2][3] with the
130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[53]

The Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) estimated unit costs for Block 0 at
$1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[54] However, since these estimates were made
the Block 0 SLS vehicle was dropped in late 2011, and the design was not completed.
[55] The Space Review estimated the cost per launch at $5 billion, depending on the
rate of launches.[56][57] NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency
will build the Orion Service Module.[58]

In September 2012, an SLS deputy project manager stated that $500 million per
launch is a reasonable target cost for SLS.[59] By comparison, a Saturn V launch
cost roughly $1.23 billion in 2016 dollars.[60][61]

In August 2014, as the SLS program passed its Key Decision Point C review and
entered full development, costs from February 2014 until its planned launch in
September 2018 were estimated at $7.021 billion.[62] Ground systems modifications
and construction would require an additional $1.8 billion over the same time
period.[63]

In October 2018, NASA's inspector general reported that the Boeing core stage
contract had made up 40 percent of the $11.9 billion spent on SLS as of August
2018. By 2021, core stages were expected to have cost a total of US$8.9 billion,
which is twice the initial planned amount.[64]
In December 2018, NASA estimated that yearly budgets for SLS will range from US$2.1
to US$2.3B between 2019 to 2023.[65]

In March 2019, the Trump Administration released its Fiscal Year 2020 Budget
Request for NASA. This budget did not include any money for the Block 1B and Block
2 variants of SLS. It is uncertain whether these future variants of SLS will be
developed.[66] Several launches previously planned for the SLS Block 1B are now
expected to fly on commercial launcher vehicles such as Falcon Heavy, New Glenn,
Omega, and Vulcan.[67] However, the request for a budget increase of 1.6 billion
dollars towards SLS, Orion, and crewed landers along with the launch manifest seem
to indicate support of the development of Block 1B, debuting Artemis 3. The Block
1B will be used mainly for co manifested crew transfers and logistic rather than
constructing the Gateway. An uncrewed Block 1B is planned to launch the Lunar
Surface Asset in 2028, the first lunar outpost of the Artemis program. Block 2
development will most likely start in the late 2020s, after NASA is regularly
visiting the lunar surface and shifts focus towards Mars.[68]

Funding history
For fiscal years 2011 through 2018, the SLS program had expended funding totaling
$13,999 million in nominal dollars. This is equivalent to $15,109 million adjusting
to 2018 dollars using the NASA New Start Inflation Indices.[69]

Fiscal Year Funding ($millions) Status

2011 $1,536.1 Actual[70]
(Formal SLS Program reporting excludes the Fiscal 2011 budget.)[71]
2012 $1,497.5 Actual[72]
2013 $1,414.9 Actual[73]
2014 $1,600.0 Actual[74]
2015 $1,678.6 Actual[75]
2016 $1,971.9 Enacted[75]
2017 $2,150.0 Appropriated[76]
2018 $2,150.0 Appropriated[77]
2011�2018 Total: $13,999M
Excluded from the prior SLS costs are:

Costs of the predecessor Ares V / Cargo Launch Vehicle (funded from 2008 to 2010)
[78]
Costs for the Ares 1 / Crew Launch Vehicle (funded from 2006 to 2010, a total of
$4.8 billion[78][79] in development that included the 5-segment Solid Rocket
Boosters that will be used on the SLS)
Costs to assemble, integrate, prepare and launch the SLS and its payloads such as
Orion (funded under the NASA Ground Operations Project,[80] currently about
$400M[74] per year)
Costs of payloads for the SLS (such as Orion)
Included in the prior SLS costs are:

Costs of the interim Upper Stage for the SLS, the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion
Stage (ICPS) for SLS, which includes a $412M contract[81]
Costs of the final Upper Stage for the SLS, the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS)
(funded at $85M in 2016,[82] $300M in 2017[83] and $300M in 2018[84])
There are no current NASA estimates for the average costs per flight of SLS, nor
for the SLS program recurring yearly costs once operational. In 2016, the projected
annual cost for Orion, SLS, and ground systems was $2 billion or less.[85] NASA
associate administrator William H. Gerstenmaier has said that per flight cost
estimates will not be provided by NASA.[86]

Constellation
From 2009 to 2011, three full-duration static fire tests of five-segment SRBs were
conducted under the Constellation Program, including tests at low and high core
temperatures to validate performance at extreme temperatures.[87][88][89]

Early SLS
During the early development of the SLS a number of configurations were considered,
including a Block 0 variant with three main engines,[17] a Block 1A variant with
upgraded the vehicle's boosters instead of improved second stage,[17] and a Block 2
with five main engines and the Earth Departure Stage, with up to three J-2X
engines.[25] In February 2015, it was determined that these concepts would exceed
the congressionally mandated Block 1 and Block 1B baseline payloads.[36]

On 14 September 2011, NASA announced the new launch system,[90] which is intended
to take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the
cornerstone for future US human space exploration efforts in combination with the
Orion spacecraft[91][92][93]

On 31 July 2013, the SLS passed the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The review
included not only the rocket and boosters but also ground support and logistical
arrangements.[94] On August 7, 2014 the SLS Block 1 passed a milestone known as Key
Decision Point C and entered full-scale development, with an estimated launch date
of November 2018.[95][62]

In 2013, NASA and Boeing analyzed the performance of several EUS engine options.
The analysis was based on a second stage usable propellant load of 105 metric tons,
and compared stages with four RL10 engines, two RL60 engines, or one J-2X engine.
[96]

In 2014, NASA also considered using the European Vinci instead of the RL10. The
Vinci offers the same specific impulse but with 64% greater thrust, which would
allow for the same performance at lower cost.[97][98]

Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems has completed full-duration static fire tests
of the five-segment SRBs. Qualification Motor 1 (QM-1) was tested on March 10,
2015.[99] Qualification Motor 2 (QM-2) was successfully tested on June 28, 2016.

Current SLS
Currently three SLS versions are planned: Block 1, Block 1B, and Block 2. Each will
use the same core stage with four main engines, but Block 1B will feature the
Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), and Block 2 will combine the EUS with upgraded
boosters.[43][15][100]

In mid-November 2014, construction of the first core stage hardware began using a
new welding system in the South Vertical Assembly Building at NASA's Michoud
Assembly Facility.[101] Between 2015 and 2017 NASA test fired RS-25 engines in
preparation for use on SLS.[21]

As of late 2015, the SLS program was stated to have a 70% confidence level for the
first crewed Orion flight by 2023.[102][103][104]

Confidence article builds for the core stage began on January 5, 2016 and were
expected to be completed in late January of that year. Once completed the test
articles will be sent to ensure structural integrity at Marshall Spaceflight
Center. A structural test article of the ICPS was delivered in 2015, with the stage
for Artemis 1 was slated for assembly in late January 2016.[105][needs update]

The first flight of SLS has slipped multiple times, first to 2019,[106] then to
June 2020.[7]

Criticism
The main criticisms of SLS are program cost, lack of commercial involvement, and
the non-competitive nature of a vehicle that is legislated to use Space
Transportation System components.

In 2009, the Augustine commission proposed a commercial 75-metric-ton (165,000 lb)

launcher with lower operating costs, and noted that a 40�60 t (88,000�132,000 lb)
launcher was the minimum required to support lunar exploration.[107]

In 2011�2012, the Space Access Society, Space Frontier Foundation and The Planetary
Society called for cancellation of the project, arguing that SLS will consume the
funds for other projects from the NASA budget.[108][109][110] U.S. Representative
Dana Rohrabacher and others proposed that an orbital propellant depot should be
developed and the Commercial Crew Development program accelerated instead.[108]
[111][112][113][114] A NASA study that was not publicly released[115][116] and
another from the Georgia Institute of Technology that was show this option to be
possibly cheaper.[117][118] In 2012, the United Launch Alliance also suggested
using existing rockets with on-orbit assembly and propellant depots as needed. The
lack of competition in the SLS design was highlighted.[119][120][121][122][123]

In 2011, Mars Society/Mars Direct founder Robert Zubrin suggested that a heavy lift
vehicle could be developed for $5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal.
[124]

In 2010, SpaceX's CEO Elon Musk claimed that his company could build a launch
vehicle in the 140�150 t payload range for $2.5 billion, or $300 million (in 2010
dollars) per launch, not including a potential upper-stage upgrade.[125][126] In
the early 2010s, SpaceX went on to start development of BFR, a planned fully
reusable super-heavy launch system. Reusability is claimed to allow the lowest cost
super-heavy launcher ever made.[127] If the price per launch and payload
capabilities for the BFR are anywhere near Musk's claimed capabilities, the rocket
will be substantially cheaper than the SLS.[128]

In 2011, Rep. Tom McClintock and other groups called on the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate possible violations of the Competition
in Contracting Act (CICA), arguing that Congressional mandates forcing NASA to use
Space Shuttle components for SLS are de facto non-competitive, single source
requirements assuring contracts to existing shuttle suppliers.[109][129][130]
Opponents of the heavy launch vehicle have critically used the name "Senate launch
system".[38] The Competitive Space Task Force, in September 2011, said that the new
government launcher directly violates NASA's charter, the Space Act, and the 1998
Commercial Space Act requirements for NASA to pursue the "fullest possible
engagement of commercial providers" and to "seek and encourage, to the maximum
extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space".[108]

In 2013, Chris Kraft, the NASA mission control leader from the Apollo era,
expressed his criticism of the system as well.[131] Lori Garver, former NASA Deputy
Administrator, has called for cancelling the program.[132] Phil Plait has voiced
his criticism of SLS in light of ongoing budget tradeoffs between Commercial Crew
Development and SLS budget, also referring to earlier critique by Garver.[133]

In 2015, The Planetary Society claimed that a Mars mission could be conducted
within existing budgets.[134]