The ‘Green Run’ test on 16 January of NASA’s Space Launch System (SLS) was intended to be the last milestone before the super-heavy lift booster would be moved to Cape Canaveral before the first Artemis I mission in November 2021 The full duration The static fire test is designed to simulate a typical launch, while the rocket’s main engines run at maximum power for about eight minutes. But despite a resounding start, the vehicle’s on-board systems caused an automatic outage in just 67 seconds. makes it the latest in a long line of disappointments surrounding the controversial booster.
When it was introduced in 2011, the SLS seemed so simple. Instead of spending the time and money needed to develop a brand new rocket, the super-heavy lever would be based on lightly modified versions of Space Shuttle components. All engineers had to do was attach four of the Orbiter’s RS-25 engines to the bottom of an enlarged external tank and put on some similar elongated Solid Rocket Boosters. In place of the complex winged Orbiter, crew and cargo would ride on top of the rocket using an upper stage and capsule not different from those used in the Apollo program.
There is very little that can be called ‘easy’ when it comes to space travel, but the SLS is definitely designed to take away the least resistance. Using flight-proof components assembled in existing production facilities, NASA estimated that the first SLS would be ready for a test flight in 2016.
If all went according to plan, the agency expected that by the early 2020s it would be ready to send astronauts beyond a low orbit around the earth. Just in time to meet the goals set by President Obama in a 2010 speech at the Kennedy Space Center, including the crew of a nearby asteroid by 2025 and a potential mission to Mars in the 2030s.
But of course, none of that happened. By the time SLS was expected to make its first flight in 2016, with nearly $ 10 billion already spent on the program, only a few structural test items had been compiled. Every year, NASA pushed back the date for the first shake flight of the booster, as the project in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 was past the deadlines. After the recent engine test ended, engineers were able to gather the data to ensure the vehicle burned safely Jim Bridenstine, outgoing NASA administrator, said it was too early to know if the booster would still fly this year.
What went wrong? As commercial entities like SpaceX and Blue Origin move fast, NASA seems to be stuck in the past. How did such a relatively simple project get so far behind schedule and over budget?
The rocket to nowhere
This is probably the most urgent problem with the SLS program that it has no clear purpose. As a congressional project, NASA must continue to develop it, regardless of whether they actually benefit from it. Critics have often referred to the program as the “Senate Launch System” as they believe the Shuttle concept is primarily intended as a way to ensure the manufacturing facilities used to build the engines, propulsion tanks and solid rocket amplifiers. Space shuttle will remain running even after the program retires.
Without a clear mission for the SLS, it was difficult for NASA engineers to make long-term development plans. What payload should the booster carry, and where, are the most important questions to be answered. NASA is no longer pursuing the mission to repair a nearby Asteroid, and a human mission to Mars is still decades away. The SLS is scheduled to Europa Clipper to Jupiter in 2025, although the Falcon Heavy is already considered a backup, it would not be ready in time.
Although its ultimate effectiveness is disputed, the design of the Space Shuttle was driven by a very specific purpose: to transport large objects to and from a low earth in its boot. Every decision made during the life of the program revolved around the core principle. Without similar guidance, the Space Launch system is up and running.
Simply put, the single feature of the SLS is the sheer mass it can place in space. The base I configuration of the rocket is designed to place 95,000 kg (209,000 lb) in a low Earth orbit, and the later Block II version 130,000 kg (290,000 lb). But while these are impressive figures, it is not immediately clear what kind of mission architecture such massive modules need to be launched in one shot. The 50 years of experience gained since the Apollo era have taught us that modular systems, launched on competitive price amplifiers and assembled in orbit, are the key to creating a sustainable space infrastructure.
Wasted Reusability
The Space Shuttle was designed from the start to be an almost completely reusable architecture. Apart from the external tank, every component of the system can be recycled, refurbished and flown again. The idea is that it would be cheaper and faster to reuse the same vehicle than to build a new vehicle for each mission.
Unfortunately, the complexity and cost of the refurbishment process is greatly underestimated, in part due to technical and material limitations in the era. In the end, the Shuttle never launched as affordable and as fast as its designers had hoped, but the lessons learned during the program helped modernize reusable spacecraft such as the Dream Chaser of the Sierra Nevada Corporation and the Boeing X- 37B.
But despite the current trend toward reusable rockets and spacecraft, NASA is taking a step backwards with the SLS by using components designed for refurbishment and discarding them at the end of each flight. The RS-25 engines installed on the first SLS rocket were not newly manufactured, they are literally the same engines that were pulled from the Shuttle Orbiters when they were placed in museums. The same goes for the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs); the new elongated amplifiers use segments of the original SRBs of the Shuttle, but instead of coming on parachutes to get back, they will plunge into the sea and sink.
At present, NASA has just enough RS-25 engines left over from the Shuttle program to support four SLS flights. To address this, the agency Aerojet Rocketdyne has already contracted to manufacture a new version of the engine called the RS-25E that is designed to be spent. Unfortunately, these design changes come at a huge price. Each RS-25E costs NASA nearly $ 150 million, which is more than what SpaceX charges for a flight on the Falcon Heavy. With a price per launch that will easily exceed the price of the infamous expensive Space Shuttle, it’s hard to imagine how SLS could possibly stay competitive with reusable commercial vehicles starting within the current decade, such as SpaceX’s Starship and Blue Origin is New Glenn.
A calculated risk
After NASA examined the data, it said the automatic interruption during the engine test on January 16 was due to deliberately conservative test limits to avoid unnecessary stress on the booster. At a press conference, administrator Bridenstine said that if it had been a real flight, the engines would have kept spinning for the full duration to reach the track. He further explained that there is an inherent risk involved, should NASA or main contractor Boeing decide to repeat the test fire for the full duration, as the propellant tanks can only be filled and drained a limited number of times.
Although nothing has been determined yet, it appears that these statements indicate that NASA may decide not to repeat the test fire and continue with the Artemis I mission to ensure that it is the current launch date of November 2021. Conventional wisdom would say that this is unwise, but since the first flight will have no human inhabitants, the usually risk-averse space agency is willing to throw the dice if it means they can avoid another costly delay on a program which is already facing. fierce criticism.
On the other hand, the explosion of their first Space Launch System rocket to millions of viewers around the world directly will not improve the case. A catastrophic failure during Artemis I is also likely to lead to a delay in the crew of Artemis II tentatively scheduled for August 2023. The resulting domino effect is likely to make it impossible for NASA to meet the already ambitious first female deadline. could fetch. and the next man by 2024 on the lunar surface.