World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Space Launch System

Space Launch System

Artist's rendering of the SLS Block 1 crewed variant launching
Function Launch vehicle
Country of origin United States
Cost per launch () US$500 million (2012)[1]
Diameter 8.4 m (330 in) (core stage)
Stages 2
Payload to
70,000 to 130,000 kg (150,000 to 290,000 lb)
Associated rockets
Family Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles
Launch history
Status Undergoing development
Launch sites LC-39, Kennedy Space Center
First flight No later than November 2018[2]
Notable payloads Orion MPCV
Boosters (Block I)
No boosters 2 Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters
Engines 1
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)
Burn time 124 seconds
First Stage (Block I, IB, II) - Core Stage
Diameter 8.4 m (330 in)
Empty mass 85,270 kg (187,990 lb)
Gross mass 979,452 kg (2,159,322 lb)
Engines 4 RS-25D/E[3]
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 I) - ICPS
Length 13.7 m (540 in)
Diameter 5 m (200 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 IB, Block II) - Exploration Upper Stage
Engines 4 RL10
Thrust 440 kN (99,000 lbf)
Fuel LH2/LOX

The Space Launch System (SLS) is a United States Space Shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle being designed by NASA. It follows the cancellation of the Constellation program, and is to replace the retired Space Shuttle. The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 envisions the transformation of the Constellation program's Ares I and Ares V vehicle designs into a single launch vehicle usable for both crew and cargo.

The SLS launch vehicle is to be upgraded over time with more powerful versions. Its initial Block I version is to lift a payload of 70 metric tons to low Earth orbit (LEO), which will be increased with the debut of Block IB and the Exploration Upper Stage.[4] Block II will replace the initial Shuttle-derived boosters with advanced boosters and is planned to have a LEO capability of more than 130 metric tons to meet the congressional requirement;[5] this would make the SLS the most capable heavy lift vehicle ever built.[6][7]

These upgrades will allow the SLS to lift astronauts and hardware to various beyond-LEO destinations: on a circumlunar trajectory as part of Exploration Mission 1 with Block I, to a near-Earth asteroid in Exploration Mission 2 with Block IB, and to Mars with Block II. The SLS will launch the Orion Crew and Service Module and may support trips to the International Space Station if necessary. SLS will use the ground operations and launch facilities at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Florida.


  • Design and development 1
    • Core stage 1.1
    • Boosters 1.2
      • Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters 1.2.1
      • Advanced boosters 1.2.2
    • Upper stage 1.3
      • Confirmed upper stages 1.3.1
      • Potential upper stages 1.3.2
      • Interplanetary stage 1.3.3
    • Assembled rocket 1.4
    • Program costs 1.5
    • Fabrication 1.6
  • Alternatives 2
  • Proposed missions and schedule 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • External links 6

Design and development

Space Launch System's planned variants
Artist concept of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) 70-metric-ton configuration launching to space.

On September 14, 2011, NASA announced its design selection for the new launch system, declaring that it would take the agency's astronauts farther into space than ever before and provide the cornerstone for future US human space exploration efforts.[8][9][10] Four versions of the launch vehicle have been planned at various times – Blocks 0, I, IA, IB and II. Each configuration utilizes different core stages, boosters and upper stages, with some components deriving directly from Space Shuttle hardware and others being developed specifically for the SLS.[11] Block II of the SLS, the most capable variant, was initially depicted as having five RS-25E engines, upgraded boosters and an 8.4-meter diameter upper stage with three J-2X engines.[12][13] Along with its baseline 8.4 meter diameter payload fairing a longer but thinner 5-meter class payload fairing with a length of 10 m or greater is also considered for propelling heavier payloads to deep space.[14] Since then a number of changes have been made, with Block 0 and Block IA no longer in design and the final Block II design being dependent on an ongoing booster competition and further analysis. The initial Block I two-stage variant will have a lift capability of between 70,000 and 77,000 kg, while the proposed Block II final variant will have similar lift capacity and height to the original Saturn V.[15] By November 2011, NASA had selected five rocket configurations for wind tunnel testing, described in three Low Earth Orbit classes; 70 metric tons (t), 95 t, and 140 t.[16]

In 2011, NASA announced that development of the Orion spacecraft from the Constellation program will continue as the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV)[17] to be flown on SLS.

On July 31, 2013 the SLS passed the Preliminary Design Review (PDR). The review encompassed all aspects of the SLS' design, not only the rocket and boosters but also ground support and logistical arrangements. Successful completion of the PDR paves the way for Gate-C approval by NASA senior administration, enabling the project to move from design to implementation.[18]

Core stage

The core stage of the SLS is common to all vehicle configurations, essentially consisting of a modified Space Shuttle External Tank with the aft section adapted to accept the rocket's Main Propulsion System (MPS) and the top converted to host an interstage structure.[6][19] It will be fabricated at the Michoud Assembly Facility.[20] The stage will utilize four RS-25 engines.

  • Block 0 was an initial planning baseline version, from Shuttle components, using an 8.4 meter core stage and three RS-25D engines.[21][22] However, NASA managers preferred designing the SLS core stage to use four RS-25 engines, skipping over the Block 0 configuration, as it would remove the need to substantially redesign the core stage to accommodate an extra engine.[23]
  • Block I and IB: 8.4 meter core with four RS-25D/E engines.[11]
  • Block II: Initially planned to use five RS-25D/E engines,[12] Block II is now expected to use four engines like Block I and IB.[3]


Artist concept showing NASA’s Space Launch System with two 5 segment SRB boosters rolling to a launchpad at Kennedy Space Center at night.
Comparison of the Saturn V, Space Shuttle, and SLS Block I

In addition to the thrust produced by the engines on the core stage, the first two minutes of flight will be aided by two rocket boosters mounted to either side of the core stage.

Shuttle-derived solid rocket boosters

Blocks I and IB of the SLS will use modified Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs), extended from four segments to five segments. Unlike the Space Shuttle boosters, these will not be recovered and will sink into the Atlantic Ocean downrange.[24] Alliant Techsystems (ATK), the builder of the Space Shuttle SRBs, has completed three full-scale, full-duration static tests of the five-segment rocket booster. Development motor (DM-1) was successfully tested on September 10, 2009; DM-2 on August 31, 2010 and DM-3 on September 8, 2011. For DM-2 the motor was cooled to a core temperature of 40 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius), and for DM-3 it was heated to above 90 °F (32 °C). In addition to other objectives, these tests validated motor performance at extreme temperatures.[25][26][27] Each five-segment SRB has a thrust of 3,600,000 lbf (16 MN) at sea level.

Advanced boosters

NASA will eventually switch from Shuttle-derived five-segment SRBs to upgraded boosters[28] These may be of either the solid rocket or liquid rocket booster type.[11] NASA originally planned to incorporate these advanced boosters in the Block IA configuration of SLS, but this was superseded by Block IB, which will continue to use five-segment SRBs combined with a new upper stage,[29] after it was determined that the Block IA configuration would result in high acceleration which would be unsuitable for Orion and could result in a costly redesign of the Block I core.[30] Prior to the selection of Block IB, NASA intended to begin the Advanced Booster Competition,[3][31][32] which would have selected an advanced booster in 2015. Though NASA is no longer planning on selecting new boosters for the first flights of SLS,[33] competitors for the SLS Block II advanced booster include:

  • Aerojet, in partnership with Teledyne Brown, with a domestic version of an uprated Soviet NK-33 LOX/RP-1 engine, an engine derived from the NK-15 initially designed to lift the unsuccessful N-1 Soviet moonshot vehicle, with each engine's thrust increased from 394,000 lbf (1.75 MN) to at least 500,000 lbf (2.2 MN) at sea level. This booster would be powered by eight AJ-26-500 engines,[34] or four AJ-1E6 engines[35] On February 14, 2013, NASA awarded a $23.3 million 30-month contract Aerojet to build a full-scale 550,000-pound thrust class main injector and thrust chamber to be used in the advanced booster.[36] Two standard Aerojet AJ-26 engines, together producing a combined 735,000 lbf (3.27 MN) of sea level thrust, successfully lifted the Antares rocket in 2013.[37]
  • Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and Dynetics, with a booster design known as "Pyrios", which would use two F-1B engines derived from the F-1 LOX/RP-1 engine that powered the first stage of the Saturn V vehicle in the Apollo program. In 2012, it was determined that if the dual-engined Pyrios booster was selected for the SLS Block II, the payload could be 150 metric tons (t) to Low Earth Orbit, 20 t more than the baseline 130 t to LEO for SLS Block II.[38] In 2013, it was reported that in comparison to the F-1 engine that it is derived from, the F-1B engine is to have improved efficiency, be more cost effective and have fewer engine parts.[39] Each F-1B is to produce 1,800,000 lbf (8.0 MN) of thrust at sea level, an increase over the 1,550,000 lbf (6.9 MN) of thrust of the initial F-1 engine.[40]
  • ATK proposed an advanced SRB named "Dark Knight" with more energetic propellant, a lighter composite case, and other design improvements to reduce costs and improve performance. ATK states it provides "capability for the SLS to achieve 130 t payload with significant margin" when combined with a Block II core stage containing five RS-25 engines. However, the advanced SRB would achieve no more than 113 t to low earth orbit with the current core stage with four RS-25 engines.[3][38][41]

Christopher Crumbly, manager of NASA’s SLS advanced development office in January 2013 commented on the booster competition, "The F-1 has great advantages because it is a gas generator and has a very simple cycle. The oxygen-rich staged combustion cycle [Aerojet’s engine] has great advantages because it has a higher specific impulse. The Russians have been flying ox[ygen]-rich for a long time. Either one can work. The solids [of ATK] can work."[42]

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.

The upper stage for the interim SLS Block I is designated the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage and uses a single RL10 engine. The SLS Block IB's 2nd stage is designated the Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) and uses four RL10 engines. Prior to the selection of the EUS, NASA considered the Earth Departure Stage, a second stage powered by two or three J-2X engines,[43][44] which has been dropped in favor of the RL10 powered EUS.[29]

Confirmed upper stages

  • Block I, scheduled to fly only Exploration Mission 1 (EM-1) by November 2018,[2] will use a modified Delta IV 5 meter Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS),[45] referred to as the Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS). This stage will be powered by a single RL10B-2. SLS will be capable of lifting 70 metric tons in this configuration, however the ICPS will be considered part of the payload and be placed into an initial 1,800 km by -93 km suborbital trajectory along with the Orion crew capsule, where the stage will perform an orbital insertion burn and then a translunar injection burn to send the uncrewed Orion on a circumlunar excursion.[46]
  • Block IB's second stage, scheduled to debut on Exploration Mission 2 (EM-2), will use the 8.4 meter Exploration Upper Stage (EUS), previously named the Dual Use Upper Stage (DUUS), powered by four RL10 engines.[29] The EUS is to complete the SLS ascent phase and then re-ignite to send its payload to destinations beyond low Earth orbit, similar to the role performed by the Saturn V's 3rd stage, the J-2 powered S-IVB. An analysis by NASA and Boeing prior to the selection of the EUS indicated an upper stage with four RL10 engines would be capable of lifting about 93 metric tons to orbit with an upper stage propellant load of 231,000 lb (105,000 kg).[47] The EUS design calls for a propellant load of up to 285,000 lb (129,000 kg).[48]
  • Block II, not expected until the 2030s,[30] would combine the Block IB EUS with advanced boosters and be capable of placing more than 130 metric tons into LEO or up to 155 metric tons into LEO with the liquid booster designs.[49][50]

Potential upper stages

Prior to the selection of the EUS for Block IB, NASA and Boeing analyzed the performance of several second stage options. The analysis was based on a second stage usable propellant load of 105 metric tons, except for the Block I and ICPS, which will carry 27.1 metric tons. These options are the following:[51]

  • Block I SLS without an upper stage would be capable of delivering 70 t to low earth orbit (LEO), and, using the ICPS, 20.2 t to Trans-Mars injection (TMI) and 2.9 t to Europa.
  • A 4 engine RL10 upper stage could deliver 93.1 t to LEO, 31.7 t to TMI and 8.1 t to Europa.
  • A 2 engine MB60 (an engine comparable to the RL60)[52] upper stage could deliver 97 t to LEO, 32.6 t to TMI and 8.5 t to Europa.
  • A single engine J-2X upper stage, with higher thrust than other options, could deliver 105.2 t to LEO, but the lower specific impulse of the J-2X would decrease its beyond-LEO capability to 31.6 t to TMI and 7.1 to Europa.

Robotic exploration missions to Jupiter's water ice moon - Europa, are increasingly seen as well suited to the lift capabilities of the Block IB SLS.[53]

Interplanetary stage

The Bimodal Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines on the Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV). Cold launched, it would be assembled in-orbit by a number of Block II SLS payload lifts. The Orion crew capsule is docked on the right.

An additional beyond LEO engine for interplanetary travel from Earth orbit to Mars orbit, and back, is being studied as of 2013 at Marshall Space Flight Center with a focus on nuclear thermal rocket (NTR) engines.[54] In historical ground testing, NTRs proved to be at least twice as efficient as the most advanced chemical engines, allowing quicker transfer time and increased cargo capacity. The shorter flight duration, estimated at 3-4 months with NTR engines,[55] compared to 8-9 months using chemical engines,[56] would reduce crew exposure to potentially harmful and difficult to shield cosmic rays.[57][58][59][60] NTR engines, such as the Pewee of Project Rover, were selected in the Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA).[61][62][63][64]

Assembled rocket

The SLS 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 without destacking.[65]

Program costs

During the joint Senate-NASA presentation in September 2011, it was stated that the SLS program has 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.[66] These costs and schedule are considered optimistic in an independent 2011 cost assessment report by Booz Allen Hamilton for NASA.[67] An unofficial 2011 NASA document estimated the cost of the program through 2025 to total at least $41bn for four 70 t launches (1 unmanned, 3 manned),[68] with the 130 t version ready no earlier than 2030.[69] HEFT estimated unit costs for Block 0 at $1.6bn and Block 1 at $1.86bn in 2010.[70] However since these estimates were made the Block 0 was dropped in late 2011 and is no longer being designed,[23] and NASA announced in 2013 that the European Space Agency will build the Orion Service Module.[71]

NASA SLS deputy project manager Jody Singer at Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama stated in September 2012 that $500 million per launch is a reasonable target cost for SLS, with a relatively minor dependence of costs on launch capability.[1] By comparison, the cost for a Saturn V launch was US$185 million in 1969 dollars,[72] which is roughly US$1.2 billion in 2014 dollars.

On July 24, 2014, Government Accountability Office audit predicted that SLS will not launch by the end of 2017 as originally planned since NASA is not receiving sufficient funding.[73]


In mid-November 2014, construction began on the first SLS using the new welding system at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility, where major rocket parts will be assembled.[74]



  • Space Launch System & Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle page on
  • "Preliminary Report on Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System" (PDF), NASA.
  • SLS Future Frontiers video
  • Video animations of mission to asteroid, moon and mars

External links

  1. ^ a b "NASA's huge new rocket may cost $500 million per launch". MSNBC. September 12, 2012. 
  2. ^ a b c
  3. ^ a b c d "NASA space launch system". c. 2012. 
  4. ^ "Space Launch System". 
  5. ^ "The NASA Authorization Act of 2010". Featured Legislation. Washington DC, USA:  
  6. ^ a b Stephen Clark (March 31, 2011). "NASA to set exploration architecture this summer". Spaceflight Now. Retrieved 26 May 2011. 
  7. ^ Dwayne Day (November 25, 2013). "Burning thunder". 
  8. ^ "NASA Announces Design For New Deep Space Exploration System". NASA. 14 September 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2011. 
  9. ^ "Press Conference on the Future of NASA Space Program". C-Span. 14 September 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2011. 
  10. ^ Kenneth Chang (September 14, 2011). "NASA Unveils New Rocket Design". New York Times. Retrieved 14 September 2011. 
  11. ^ a b c Chris Bergin (4 October 2011). "SLS trades lean towards opening with four RS-25s on the core stage". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  12. ^ a b c d "Acronyms to Ascent – SLS managers create development milestone roadmap". 23 February 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012. 
  13. ^ "SLS trades lean towards opening with four RS-25s on the core stage". 
  14. ^ NASA interested in payload fairing options for multi-mission SLS capability
  15. ^ Karl Tate (16 September 2011). "Space Launch System: NASA's Giant Rocket Explained". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  16. ^ Chris Gebhardt. "SLS: NASA identifies DAC-1 configuration candidates for wind tunnel tests". Archived from the original on unknown. 
  17. ^ "NASA Announces Key Decision For Next Deep Space Transportation System". NASA. 24 May 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  18. ^ "NASA's Space Launch System Program PDR: Answers to the Acronym".  
  19. ^ Chris Bergin (14 September 2011). "SLS finally announced by NASA – Forward path taking shape". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  20. ^ "NASA's Space Launch System Core Stage Passes Major Milestone, Ready to Start Construction". Space Travel. 27 December 2012. 
  21. ^ Chris Bergin (April 25, 2011). "SLS planning focuses on dual phase approach opening with SD HLV". Retrieved January 26, 2012. 
  22. ^ Bergin, Chris (June 16, 2011). "Managers SLS announcement after SD HLV victory". Retrieved January 26, 2012. 
  23. ^ a b Chris Bergin (4 October 2011). "SLS trades lean towards opening with four RS-25s on the core stage". NASA Retrieved 16 September 2013. 
  24. ^ "Space Launch System: How to launch NASA’s new monster rocket". 20 February 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012. 
  25. ^ "NASA and ATK Successfully Test Ares First Stage Motor". NASA. 10 September 2009. Retrieved 30 January 2012. 
  26. ^ "NASA and ATK Successfully Test Five-Segment Solid Rocket Motor". NASA. 31 August 2010. Retrieved 30 January 2012. 
  27. ^ NASA Successfully Tests Five-Segment Solid Rocket Motor, NASA, 31 August 2010, retrieved 8 September 2011 
  28. ^ Keith Cowing (September 14, 2011). "NASA's New Space Launch System Announced – Destination TBD". SpaceRef. Retrieved January 26, 2012. 
  29. ^ a b c d "NASA confirms EUS for SLS Block IB design and EM-2 flight". Retrieved 24 July 2014. 
  30. ^ a b
  31. ^ Frank Morring (17 June 2011). "NASA Will Compete Space Launch System Boosters". Aviation Week. Retrieved 20 June 2011. 
  32. ^ Lee Hutchinson (2013-04-15). "New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust".  
  33. ^ "News from the 30th Space Symposium | Second SLS Mission Might Not Carry Crew". May 21, 2014. Retrieved July 2014. 
  34. ^ "Space Launch Report - Space Launch System Advanced Booster". 
  35. ^ "Atlas V Could Benefit From NASA’s SLS". 
  36. ^ Rachel Kraft (February 14, 2013). "NASA Awards Final Space Launch System Advanced Booster Contract". NASA. Retrieved February 19, 2013. 
  37. ^
  38. ^ a b "Dynetics PWR liquidize SLS booster competition". November 2012. 
  39. ^ "Dynetics reporting "outstanding" progress on F-1B rocket engine".  
  40. ^ Lee Hutchinson (2013-04-15). "New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust".  
  41. ^ "Table 2. ATK Advanced Booster Satisfies NASA Exploration Lift Requirements". 
  42. ^ "SLS Block II drives hydrocarbon engine research". January 14, 2013. 
  43. ^ Chris Bergin (November 9, 2011). "SLS J-2X Upper Stage engine enjoys successful 500 second test fire". 
  44. ^ Chris Bergin (February 12, 2013). "Second J-2X engine prepares for SLS testing". 
  45. ^ a b Rosenberg, Zach. "Delta second stage chosen as SLS interim". Flight International, May 8, 2012.
  46. ^ "Space Launch System Data Sheet". Retrieved July 25, 2014. 
  47. ^ Chris Gebhardt (November 13, 2013). "SLS upper stage proposals reveal increasing payload-to-destination options". 
  48. ^ Gebhardt, Chris. "NASA confirms EUS for SLS Block IB design and EM-2 flight". Retrieved November 8, 2014. 
  49. ^ "SLS prepares for PDR – Evolution eyes Dual-Use Upper Stage". Retrieved July 25, 2014. 
  50. ^ Lee Hutchinson (2013-04-15). "New F-1B rocket engine upgrades Apollo-era design with 1.8M lbs of thrust".  
  51. ^ Chris Gebhardt (November 13, 2013). "SLS upper stage proposals reveal increasing payload-to-destination options". 
  52. ^ "Program Status of the Pratt & Whitney RL60 Engine". 
  53. ^ "A generational opportunity for Europa, by Casey Dreier, Monday, July 21, 2014". 
  54. ^
  55. ^ "NUCLEAR ROCKETS: To Mars and Beyond Nuclear Rockets: Then and Now. LANL". 
  56. ^ "How long would a trip to Mars take?". 
  57. ^ "How Fast Could (Should) We Go to Mars? Comparing Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) with the Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) and Chemical Rocket for Sustainable 1-year human Mars round-trip mission". 
  58. ^ "A One-year Round Trip Crewed Mission to Mars using Bimodal Nuclear Thermal and Electric Propulsion (BNTEP) (doi: 10.2514/6.2013-4076)". 
  59. ^ "PDF 20120003776". 
  60. ^ "PDF 20120012928". 
  61. ^ "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP): A Proven Growth Technology for Human NEO / Mars Exploration Missions". 2012. 
  62. ^ a b c "SLS Exploration Roadmap evaluations provide clues for human Mars missions January 24, 2012 by Chris Bergin". 
  63. ^ "NASA Researchers Studying Advanced Nuclear Rocket Technologies by Rick Smith for Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville AL (SPX) Jan 10, 2013". 
  64. ^ "A One-year Round Trip Crewed Mission to Mars using Bimodal Nuclear Thermal and Electric Propulsion (BNTEP) (doi: 10.2514/6.2013-4076)". 
  65. ^ "SLS to be robust in the face of scrubs, launch delays and pad stays". 4 April 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012. 
  66. ^ Marcia Smith (14 September 2011). "New NASA Crew Transportation System to Cost $18 Billion Through 2017". Space Policy Online. Retrieved 15 September 2011. 
  67. ^ "Independent Cost Assessment of the Space Launch System, Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle and 21st Century Ground Systems Programs: Executive Summary of Final Report". Booz Allen Hamilton. 19 August 2011. 
  68. ^ "ESD Integration, Budget Availability Scenarios" (PDF). Space Policy Online. 19 August 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2011. 
  69. ^ Marcia Smith (9 September 2011). "The NASA Numbers Behind That WSJ Article". Space Policy Online. Retrieved 15 September 2011. 
  70. ^ "Human Exploration Framework Team (HEFT) DRM Review – Phase 1". September 2010. p. 69. 
  71. ^ NASA Signs Agreement for a European-Provided Orion Service Module
  72. ^ "SP-4221 The Space Shuttle Decision- Chapter 6: ECONOMICS AND THE SHUTTLE". NASA. Retrieved 2011-01-15. 
  73. ^ Morrison, Lauren; Bale, Lauren (July 24, 2014). "Federal audit reveals not enough money for NASA to get SLS off the ground".  
  74. ^ SLS Engine Section Barrel Hot off the Vertical Weld Center at Michoud. NASA
  75. ^ a b c Henry Vanderbilt (15 September 2011). "Impossibly High NASA Development Costs Are Heart of the Matter". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  76. ^ a b Ferris Valyn (15 September 2011). "Monster Rocket Will Eat America’s Space Program". Space Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 16 September 2011. 
  77. ^ "Statement before the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology US House of Representatives Hearing: A Review of the NASA's Space Launch System" (PDF). The Planetary Society. 12 July 2011. Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  78. ^ "The SLS: too expensive for exploration?". 28 November 2011. 
  79. ^ Rohrabacher, Dana (14 September 2011). "Nothing New or Innovative, Including It's Astronomical Price Tag". Retrieved 14 Sep 2011. 
  80. ^ "Rohrabacher calls for "emergency" funding for CCDev". 24 August 2011. Retrieved 15 September 2011. 
  81. ^ Jeff Foust (15 September 2011). "A monster rocket, or just a monster?". The Space Review. 
  82. ^ Jeff Foust (1 November 2011). "Can NASA develop a heavy-lift rocket?". The Space Review. 
  83. ^ Mohney, Doug (21 October 2011). "Did NASA Hide In-space Fuel Depots To Get a Heavy Lift Rocket?". Satellite Spotlight. Retrieved 10 November 2011. 
  84. ^ "Propellant Depot Requirements Study". HAT Technical Interchange Meeting. 21 July 2011. 
  85. ^ Cowing, Keith (12 October 2011). "Internal NASA Studies Show Cheaper and Faster Alternatives to the Space Launch System". Retrieved 10 November 2011. 
  86. ^ "Near Term Space Exploration with Commercial Launch Vehicles Plus Propellant Depot". Georgia Institute of Technology / National Institute of Aerospace. 2011. 
  87. ^ "Affordable Exploration Architecture" (PDF). United Launch Alliance. 2009. 
  88. ^ Grant Bonin (6 June 2011). "Human spaceflight for less: the case for smaller launch vehicles, revisited". The Space Review. 
  89. ^  
  90. ^ Rick Tumlinson (15 September 2011). "The Senate Launch System – Destiny, Decision, and Disaster". Huffington Post. 
  91. ^ Andrew Gasser (24 October 2011). "Propellant depots: the fiscally responsible and feasible alternative to SLS". The Space Review. 
  92. ^ Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee; Augustine, Austin, Chyba, Kennel, Bejmuk, Crawley, Lyles, Chiao, Greason, Ride (October 2009). "Seeking A Human Spaceflight Program Worthy of A Great Nation". NASA. Retrieved 15 April 2010. 
  93. ^ Alan Boyle (7 December 2011). "Is the case for Mars facing a crisis?". MSNBC. 
  94. ^ John K. Strickland, Jr. "The SpaceX Falcon Heavy Booster: Why Is It Important?". National Space Society. Retrieved 4 January 2012. 
  95. ^ "NASA Studies Scaled-Up Falcon, Merlin". Aviation Week. 2 December 2010. 
  96. ^ Bergin, Chris (August 29, 2014). "Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets -- SLS could face Exploration Class rival". Retrieved 2014-08-30. 
  97. ^ "Congressman, Space Frontier Foundation, And Tea Party In Space Call For NASA SLS Investigation". 4 October 2011. Retrieved 20 October 2011. 
  98. ^ "The Senate Launch System". Competitive Space. 4 October 2011. Retrieved 20 October 2011. 
  99. ^ a b Chris Bergin (15 December 2011). "Building the Roadmap for SLS – Con Ops lays out the LEO/Lunar Options". Retrieved 26 January 2012. 
  100. ^ "SLS interest in DoD launch market and Secondary Payloads potential". 4 February 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012. 
  101. ^ "NASA Exploration Roadmap: A return to the Moon’s surface documented". 19 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012. 
  102. ^ a b Chris Bergin (July 2, 2013). "EM-1: NASA managers request ambitious changes to debut SLS/Orion mission". 
  104. ^ "Human Exploration of Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0 2009.". 
  105. ^ a b "NASA managers evaluate yearlong deep space asteroid mission September 9, 2013 by Marshall Murphy". 
  106. ^
  107. ^ Chris Bergin (October 6, 2013). "NASA Con Ops Assess Baseline Features for SLS/Orion Mission to Mars". 
  108. ^ "Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP): A Proven Growth Technology for Human NEO / Mars Exploration Missions". 
  109. ^ Chris Bergin (30 November 2012). "NASA interest in 2024 Mars Sample Return Mission using SLS and Orion". 
  110. ^
  111. ^ NASA's Deep Space Habitat
  112. ^ Markus Hammonds (14 April 2013). "Skylab II:Living Beyong the Dark Side of the Moon". Discovery. 
  113. ^
  114. ^ Frank Morring, Jr. (22 October 2012). "NASA Deep-Space Program Gaining Focus". Aviation Week & Space Technology. 
  115. ^ a b c Chris Gebhardt (20 November 2013). "New SLS mission options explored via new Large Upper Stage". NASASpaceFlight. 
  116. ^ "Orion's First Test Flight Offers Space Launch System a First Look at Hardware Operation, Integration". NASA. June 29, 2012. Retrieved December 11, 2012. 


See also

Planned SLS missions
(as of 2014)
Mission Targeted date Variant Notes
SLS-1/EM-1 By November 2018[2] Block I[12] Send uncrewed Orion/MPCV on trip around the Moon.
SLS-2/EM-2 2021[116] Block IB[29] Send the Orion (spacecraft) with four crew members to an asteroid that had been robotically captured and placed in lunar orbit two years in advance.[105]
  • Other proposed missions
    • 2024+ Single Shot MSR on SLS, a crewed flight with a telerobotic Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission proposed by NASA's Mars Program Planning Group. The time frame suggests SLS-5, a 105 t Block 1A rocket to deliver an Orion capsule, SEP robotic vehicle, and Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV). “Sample canister could be captured, inspected, encased and retrieved tele-robotically. Robot brings sample back and rendezvous with a crew vehicle." The mission may also include a “Possible Mars SEP (Solar Electric Power/Propulsion) Orbiter”.[109]
    • Potential sample return missions to Europa and Enceladus have also been noted.[110]
    • Deep Space Habitat (DSH), NASA's planned usage of spare ISS hardware, experience, and modules for future missions to asteroids, Earth-Moon Lagrangian point and Mars.[111]
    • Skylab II, proposal by Brand Griffin, an engineer with Gray Research Inc working with NASA Marshall, to use the upper stage hydrogen tank from SLS to build a 21st-century version of Skylab for future NASA missions to asteroids, Earth-Moon Lagrangian point-2 (EML2) and Mars.[112][113][114]
    • SLS DoD Missions, the HLV will be made available for Department of Defense and other US Government agencies to launch military or classified missions.
    • Commercial payloads, such as the Bigelow Commercial Space Stations have also been referenced.
    • Additionally “Secondary Payloads” mounted on SLS via an Encapsulated Secondary Payload Adapter (ESPA) ring could also be launched in conjunction with a "primary passenger" to maximize payloads.
    • Monolithic telescope mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for the ATLAST Space Telescope. This could be an 8 m monolithic telescope or a 16 m deployable telescope at Earth-Sun L2.[115]
    • Solar probe mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for Solar Probe 2. This probe would be placed in a low perihelion orbit to investigate corona heating and solar wind acceleration to provide forecasting of solar radiation events.[115]
    • Uranus mission, SLS has been proposed by Boeing as a launch vehicle for a Uranian probe. The rocket would “Deliver a small payload into orbit around Uranus and a shallow probe into the planet’s atmosphere.” The mission would study the Uranian atmosphere, magnetic and thermal characteristics, gravitational harmonics as well as do flybys of Uranian moons.[115]
One proposed ATLAST telescope concept, a design based on an 8 meter monolithic mirror. The Hubble Space Telescope by comparison is equipped with a 2.5 m main mirror. A telescope with an 8 meter monolithic mirror is only possible with an 8+ meter diameter payload fairing.
One section of the Skylab II Habitat would be made from the SLS Block II upper-stage hydrogen tank, similar to but larger than Skylab. A unique use for the SLS as no other vehicle is presently being designed with an 8 meter diameter upper stage tank.
  • Strategic Timeframe DRMs
    • GEO mission – a dual launch mission separated by 180 days to Geostationary Orbit. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and cargo hauler, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both launches would have a mass of about 110 t.
    • A set of lunar missions enabled in the early 2020s ranging from Earth Moon Lagrangian point-1 (EML-1) and low lunar orbit (LLO) to a lunar surface mission. These missions would lead to a lunar base combining commercial and international aspects.
      • The first two missions would be single launches of SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV to EML-1 or LLO and would have a mass of 90 t and 97.5 t respectively. The LLO mission is a crewed twelve day mission with three in Lunar orbit. Its current description is “Low Lunar Orbit (LLO): Crewed mission to LLO. Expected drivers include: SLS and CPS performance, MPCV re-entry speed, and LLO environment for MPCV”.
      • The lunar surface mission set for the late 2020s would be a dual launch separated by 120 days. This would be a nineteen-day mission with seven days on the Moon's surface. The first launch would comprise an SLS with a CPS and lunar lander, the second an SLS with a CPS and Orion MPCV. Both would enter LLO for lunar orbit rendezvous prior to landing at equatorial or polar sites on the Moon. Launches would have masses of about 130 t and 108 t, respectively. Its current description is “Lunar Surface Sortie (LSS): Lands four crew members on the surface of the Moon in the equatorial or Polar Regions and returns them to Earth,” “Expected drivers include: MPCV operations in LLO environment, MPCV uncrewed ops phase, MPCV delta V requirements, RPOD (Rendezvous, Proximity Operations and Docking), MPCV number of habitable days.”
    • Five Near Earth Asteroid (NEA) missions ranging from “Minimum” to “Full” capability are being studied. Among these are two NASA Near Earth Object (NEO) missions in 2026. A 155-day mission to NEO 1999 AO10, a 304-day mission to NEO 2001 GP2, a 490-day mission to a Potentially Hazardous Asteroid such as 2000 SG344, utilizing two Block IA/B SLS vehicles,[105] and a Boeing proposed NEO mission to NEA 2008 EV5 in 2024. The latter would start from the proposed Earth-Moon L2 based Exploration Gateway Platform. Utilising a SLS third stage the trip would take about 100 days to arrive at the asteroid, 30 days for exploration, and a 235-day return trip to Earth.[106]
    • Forward Work Martian Moon Phobos/Deimos, a crewed Flexible Path mission to one of the Martian moons. It would include 40 days in the vicinity of Mars and a return Venus flyby.
    • Forward Work Mars Landing, a crewed mission, with four to six astronauts,[107] to a semi-permanent habitat for at least 540 days on the surface of the red planet in 2033 or 2045. The mission would include in-orbit assembly, with the launch of seven SLS block II heavy lift vehicles (HLVs) with a requirement of each being able to deliver 140 metric tons to low earth orbit (LEO). The seven HLV payloads, three of which would contain nuclear propulsion modules, would be assembled in LEO into three separate vehicles for the journey to Mars; one cargo In-Situ Resource Utilization Mars Lander Vehicle (MLV) created from two HLV payloads, one Habitat MLV created from two HLV payloads and a crewed Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV), known as "Copernicus", assembled from three HLV payloads launched a number of months later. Nuclear Thermal Rocket engines such as the Pewee of Project Rover were selected in the Mars Design Reference Architecture (DRA) study as they met mission requirements being the preferred propulsion option because it is proven technology, has higher performance, lower launch mass, creates a versatile vehicle design, offers simple assembly, and has growth potential.[62][108]
Artist's rendering of Design Reference Mission 5.0, a Manned mission to Mars with the Descent/Ascent Vehicle on the far left, and the habitat and crewed commuter vehicle, the Small Pressurized Rover (SPR),[103] on the right. The oxygen producing In-Situ Resource Utilization factory would be emplaced about 1 km away.[104]
Artist's rendering of the proposed Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) "Copernicus" that would incorporate NTR propulsion and inflatable habitat technology. A five meter diameter crewed Orion MPCV is docked on the far left.
  • ISS Back-Up Crew Delivery – a single launch mission of up to four astronauts via a Block 1 SLS/Orion-MPCV without an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) to the International Space Station (ISS) if the Commercial Crew Development program does not come to fruition. This potential mission mandated by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 is deemed undesirable since the 70 t SLS and BEO Orion would be overpriced and overpowered for the mission requirements. Its current description is “delivers crew members and cargo to ISS if other vehicles are unable to perform that function. Mission length 216 mission days. 6 crewed days. Up to 210 days at the ISS.”
  • Tactical Timeframe DRMs
    • BEO Uncrewed Lunar Fly-byExploration Mission 1 (EM-1), a reclassification of SLS-1, is a single launch mission of a Block I SLS with ICPS and a Block 1 Orion MPCV (Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle), with a destination of 70,000 km past the lunar surface.[102] Its current description is “Uncrewed Lunar Flyby: Uncrewed mission Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) to test critical mission events and demonstrate performance in relevant environments. Expected drivers include: SLS and ICPS performance, MPCV environments, MPCV re-entry speed, and BEO operations.”[99]
    • BEO Crewed Lunar OrbitExploration Mission 2 (EM-2), a reclassification of SLS-2, is a single launch mission of a Block I SLS with ICPS and lunar Block 1 Orion MPCV with a liftoff mass around 68.8 t with SLS’ Payload Insertion of 50.7 t, which would be a ten to fourteen day mission with a crew of four astronauts who would spend four days in lunar orbit. Its current description is “Crewed mission to enter lunar orbit, test critical mission events, and perform operations in relevant environments”. The destination for EM-2, as of 2013, is regarded to be a captured asteroid in lunar orbit, to be conducted by no later than 2021.[102]
An Astronaut, possibly part of Exploration Mission 2, performing a Tethering Asteroid capture Maneuver at a Near Earth Object (NEO). The Space Exploration Vehicle is close by, with the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) docked to the Deep Space Habitat in the background.

Some of the currently proposed NASA Design Reference Missions (DRM) and others include:[12][99][62][100][101]

Proposed missions and schedule

Rep. Tom McClintock and other groups argue that the Congressional mandates forcing NASA to use Space Shuttle components for SLS amounts to a de facto non-competitive, single source requirement assuring contracts to existing shuttle suppliers, and calling the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate possible violations of the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA).[76][97][98] Opponents of the heavy launch vehicle have critically used the name "Senate launch system".[45] 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".[75]

Mars Society founder Robert Zubrin, who co-authored the Mars Direct concept, suggested that a heavy lift vehicle should be developed for $5 billion on fixed-price requests for proposal. Zubrin also disagrees with those that say the U.S. does not need a heavy-lift vehicle.[93] Based upon extrapolations of increased payload lift capabilities from past experience with SpaceX's Falcon launch vehicles, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk guaranteed that his company could build the conceptual Falcon XX, a vehicle in the 140-150 t payload range, for $2.5 billion, or $300 million per launch, but cautioned that this price tag did not include a potential upper-stage upgrade.[94][95] SpaceX's privately-funded MCT launch vehicle, powered by nine Raptor engines, has also been proposed for lofting very large payloads from Earth in the 2020s.[96]

Others suggest it will cost less to use an existing lower payload capacity rocket (Atlas V, Delta IV, Falcon 9, or the derivative Falcon Heavy), with on-orbit assembly and propellant depots as needed, rather than develop a new launch vehicle for space exploration without competition for the whole design.[87][88][89][90][91] The Augustine commission proposed an option for a commercial 75 metric ton launcher with lower operating costs, and noted that a 40 to 60 t launcher can support lunar exploration.[92]


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.