楼主: hkhtg090201

[任务跟踪] 美国太空发射系统SLS:项目前景不明

zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:45 | 显示全部楼层
回复 63# 东方红

按现在的情况,完全没有钱搞 130t 的,有 70t 就谢天谢地了。
zhang 发表于 2011-1-16 21:47 | 显示全部楼层
Sidemount HLV 和 Shuttle-C  的区别是 Sidemount HLV 在上升过程中有 fairing 步骤,所以运载能力更大些。
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-1-27 12:19 | 显示全部楼层
HLV: NASA说不行,国会说行.---(说你行就行,不行也行)
HLV: NASA Says No, Congress Says Yes.

January 25, 2011 10:16 AM  ....NY Times

"Two weeks ago, the agency told Congress that it had decided on preferred designs for the rocket and the crew capsule for carrying astronauts, but could yet not fit them into the schedule and constraints. "All our models say 'no,' " said Elizabeth Robinson, NASA's chief financial officer, "even models that have generous affordability considerations." She said NASA was continuing to explore how it might reduce costs. A couple of days after receiving the report, Senator Nelson said he had talked to the NASA administrator, Maj. Gen. Charles F. Bolden Jr., and "told him he has to follow the law, which requires a new rocket by 2016." He added, "And NASA has to do it within the budget the law requires."
suxiaolang 发表于 2011-1-27 16:51 | 显示全部楼层
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-3-24 16:20 | 显示全部楼层
NASA为将来的HLV 进行“挤压变形”测试

"Can Crush" Test Will Aid Future Rocket Design

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/ ... Can_Crush_Test.html

...a massive 27.5-foot wide, 20-foot-tall aluminum-lithium cylinder will be positioned between two large loading rings and subjected to one million pounds of force until it buckles. ..
浙江诸暨 发表于 2011-3-24 21:00 | 显示全部楼层
北极企鹅 发表于 2011-3-28 21:00 | 显示全部楼层
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-3-29 05:43 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 hkhtg090201 于 2011-3-29 06:06 编辑


 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-1 11:42 | 显示全部楼层
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-1 21:07 | 显示全部楼层




[据美国航空周刊网站2011年3月31日报道]  NASA重型太空发射系统(将代替被取消的“宇宙神”-5火箭)的工程师评审方案将在6月底作出最终决定。这个进度必将会激怒那些认为美国航天局新火箭工作步伐过缓的国会议员们。
    探测系统副主任库克(Doug Cooke)于3月30日告知美国众议院航天与航空科学分会,最终所选的设计可能不会在一开始就发射整130吨的载荷。具备130吨发射能力的目标是在3年《NASA授权法案》中规定的,该法案于2010年得到国会通过并由奥巴马总统签署。库克表示,随着增加能力的发展,最终将会实现这个具备130吨轨道运载能力的系统。即便对于载重要求较低的任务(70至100吨),相比于目前正在为大运载任务进行研发的商业运载器,使用计划好的SLS及其基于“猎户座”的深空乘员舱向国际太空站运送宇航员的方案也将是“低效”的。
    共和党议员爱德华兹(Donna Edwards)在一次关于老 “星座”计划向新方法过渡的听证会上施压说道,库克曾说过NASA期待最早在6月底决定新型大推力运载火箭的最终方案。迄今,库克表示,已于2011年1月公布的参考设计还在审议中。最终设计方案可能是航天飞机与“星座”计划遗留硬件的混合体,包括5个液氧/液氢航天飞机主发动机,一个由J-2X发动机提供动力的上面级(该上面级是为“星座”计划开发的,可与航天飞机外挂油箱的8.39米直径相匹配),以及四段航天飞机固体燃料助推器的双五段型号(起初是为“战神”-1乘员运载火箭第一级开发的)。
    美国参众两院科学委员会的议员都不满意NASA的方案,特别是NASA在2012财年预算要求中强调商业货运与乘员的方案,以及关于近期大推力运载开发的开放式技术研究。 (中国航天工程咨询中心  张贤明  陈菲)

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-3 20:25 | 显示全部楼层

Does NASA Really Need a HLV for BEO Exploration?
April 2, 2011, at 3:52 pmin News.

Much of the debate over NASA’s heavy-lift launcher program has centered around how to build it. How much to spend this year vs. next year, to use shuttle- and Ares-derived technologies vs. starting from scratch, and whether the Dec. 31, 2016 deadline is remotely realistic. However, there is a far more fundamental issue that has received little or no attention, one that could affect tens of billions in spending and thousands of jobs nationwide in many districts and states.

In his latest note, Space Access Society Founder Henry Vanderbilt points out the existential threat faced by advocates of building a heavy-lift vehicle:  namely, that the HLV might not be necessary to accomplish beyond Earth orbit exploration.  A combination of existing rockets and a new technology (propellant depots) could allow the United States to launch its deep-space exploration effort without having to develop an expensive new booster with extremely high operational and launch costs.

Vanderbilt closes with a plea for opponents of the Congressionally-directed HLV to call their Congressional representatives to urge them to not to dictate to NASA what architecture is required for BEO exploration.

NASA Exploration Funding

Some Background

There’s a new development in the ongoing debate over the wisdom of Congress ordering NASA to develop in-house the “Space Launch System” (SLS) heavy-lift booster.  Last year, NASA ran a study on what it would take to do a twenty-year human exploration program culminating in human flights to near-Earth asteroids.  The HEFT study (Human Exploration Framework Team) concluded that if NASA built its own 100-ton payload Heavy Lift booster then used it to launch fully-fueled mission stages Apollo-style, the overall program cost would be $143 billion over twenty years, or an average of just over seven billion a year.

For what it’s worth, NASA Human Exploration looks likely to be funded at no more than four to five billion a year for the foreseeable future.

Now a team working out of Georgia Tech has released a study looking at what happens to program costs if you add propellant depots to the HEFT baseline, allowing everything to be launched on medium-lift commercial launch vehicles with no need for a new NASA SLS-style HLV.

Under a range of assumptions, their cost for this modified HEFT program comes in at between $73 billion and $97 billion over twenty years – an average of between $3.6 billion and $4.9 billion per year.

These studies make it crystal clear: NASA can probably afford a human deep-space exploration program based on commercial boosters plus propellant depots.  NASA definitely cannot afford a human deep-space exploration program based on the Congressionally-mandated 130-ton SLS heavy lifter.

(Mind, neither HEFT nor this new Georgia Tech study are the last word in how much such a program really should cost.  Both are relatively quick ballpark estimates based largely on existing NASA practice.  The Georgia Tech study very conservatively introduces one low-risk new element into the equation to come up with these savings.  We happen to think considerable additional time and money savings are possible with further reform to the traditional NASA way of doing business.  But that’s a discussion for another day.)

Latest Status

Meanwhile, Congress may be approaching a decision point on overall federal government funding for the remainder of federal fiscal year 2011 (FY’11 ends at midnight this September 30th.)  The government has been funded so far in FY ’11 by a series of “Continuing Resolutions” (CR’s) that essentially continue funding appropriations at FY ’10 levels.

The latest of these CR’s runs out next Friday April 8th, and both sides in the budget battle are currently talking tough about no more short-term CR’s.  It’s possible some sort of CR to cover the rest of FY’11 actually will be worked out during this coming week.

There’s no way of knowing for sure what sort of NASA language might end up in such a final compromise bill, but a look at the competing House and Senate versions can provide some clues.  Both are roughly similar in overall NASA funding levels, both provide NASA with some flexibility in moving funds around for the rest of the year to deal with changing circumstances, both cancel the “Shelby Amendment” that has been expensively delaying final shutdown of Constellation since last year.

In fact, the only significant difference we can see between the House and Senate positions on NASA is that the Senate CR mandates spending $3 billion over the next six months on SLS plus the MPCV son-of-Orion crew capsule (see SAU#121, at http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau121.html) and the House CR doesn’t.

Given that:

- $3 billion is the majority of the Exploration total so other more useful Exploration programs will suffer badly
- NASA funding in general may well be stretched before the last two Shuttle missions have flown
- NASA has told Congress politely but repeatedly they simply can’t build SLS for the money specified (or within the time mandated)
- The Georgia Tech study makes clear that NASA cannot afford meaningful deep-space exploration based on SLS

it looks to us that it would be a very good thing if the Senate $3 billion mandate doesn’t make it into the final FY’11 CR.

Recommended Action:

Contact your Representative and both your Senators during this coming week – earlier is better – and tell them (politely!) that Congress should stop telling NASA what kind of rocket to build, that the SLS (or “Senate Launch System” if you prefer) is unaffordable and unsustainable.  Get as many of your friends as you can to do it too.  Numbers count.  We need to make as many of our Representatives and Senators as possible aware of our concerns in the next few days, before deals start being finalized on the FY’11 CR.

If you’re from one of the districts or states with a major financial stake in SLS, you may not make any converts, but it still helps to let them know that they have constituents who disagree with them.  They may bring up the jobs SLS would bring home – you might respond that you’re not against jobs, but they should be for building something useful; you’re more concerned with what’s good for the country as a whole.  Be direct, be passionate, be persuasive, but stay polite – rudeness or vulgarity just makes the whole position look less respectable.

Contact Info for Representative and Senators: If you know their names, you can call the US Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for their DC office.  If you don’t know who your Representative is, go to http://www.house.gov/zip/ZIP2Rep.html and enter your home zipcode.  (You may need the 9-digit version.) For Senators listed by state, go to http://www.senate.gov/general/co ... on/senators_cfm.cfm

Once through to their office, let the person who answers know you’re calling about the NASA provisions in the FY’11 CR.  They may switch you to another staffer (or that staffer’s voicemail) or they may take the call themselves.  (If you’re calling after-hours or they’re getting a lot of calls, you may go directly to a voicemail.)

Regardless, ask them to tell (Representative/Senator TheirName) that Congress should stop telling NASA what kind of rocket to build.  Pick a reason from the list that follows (or come up with your own) and give it.  If whoever you’re talking to has questions or wants to discuss the matter more, fill them in as best you can.  Then thank them for their time and ring off.


- NASA has said they can’t build the SLS (or “Senate Launch System” if you like)  for the money provided.
- NASA has said they can’t use a booster the size of SLS for at least fifteen years – why insist it be ready in five?
- SLS as mandated would use thirty-year old technology.  Why not let NASA draw on the best of current US industry capabilities instead?
- According to last year’s HEFT study, NASA cannot fit a deep-space exploration program based on an SLS-like heavy lifter within current budgets.
- According to the recent Georgia Tech study, NASA can actually fit a deep-space exploration program using smaller commercial boosters within current budgets.   (We wouldn’t recommend getting into propellant depots unless whoever you’re talking to shows signs of sharing our serious space geekery…)

Or, to quote our friends in the Space Frontier Foundation (they got their alert out two days ago, but then they’re not putting on a conference next week…)

” Our space program needs an open and fair competition among not just different contractors but different and even multiple approaches to see which are the most affordable, most flexible, and most sustainable…

“Instead, some in Congress want to make NASA build their favorite rocket, without competition, even though NASA has already told them it can’t be done for the resources available on anything like the timetable Congress wants.  It’s time to stop the Congress from mandating the Senate Launch System, and let NASA compete ideas…

“We can’t afford to repeat the mistakes of Constellation, and just rubber-stamp a pre-selected design for a rocket.  No more sole-source, non-competitive procurements…”

OK, that’s the basic version.  Some of you may want to get more involved in this effort than making a few quick phone calls.  Letters (faxed, at this point) are great!  (Emails much less so; you know how much spam you get – now imagine the amount a Congressman gets.  Better to phone than to email.)  Keep letters to one page, state your basic point (Dear Representative/Senator TheirName, I am writing to request that Congress not tell NASA what type of rocket to build in the FY’11 CR, etc…) in the first sentence of the first paragraph, then go into a paragraph of supporting detail, then politely wrap up.  Faxes are much better than paper mails at this point, in that you can be sure they’ll arrive on time.

What it comes down to is, if we care about US space commercial and technical competitiveness, if we want to see NASA with some hope of going new and interesting places in our lifetimes, we need to keep at this.  We won one battle last fall, but the war continues.

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-14 22:54 | 显示全部楼层








        乔治华盛顿大学太空政策研究所主任斯科特•佩斯说:“NASA在现有投资水平下没有足够把握满足进度要求,如果投资不增加,研制探索系统的总成本将会上升”。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 侯丹)  
 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-14 23:03 | 显示全部楼层


  [本站4月12日综合报道]奥巴马政府的官员们继续不支持(push back)国会指导下的重型运载火箭研制计划,该计划将可能挽救“星座计划”的部分内容,而这些内容是奥巴马总统希望取消的。

  2011年3月30日,白宫科学顾问约翰•霍尔德伦称:由于总统提出的2012财年NASA 187亿美元预算将投资两党“2010财年NASA授权法案”中限定的关键主题,因此国会无力通过2011财年开支法案。这将会阻碍NASA在新的太空发射系统(SLS)和多目标乘员飞行器(MPCV)方面开展工作,而NASA 2010财年法案要求SLS和MPCV应在2016年前实现运行。


      霍尔德伦在戈达德纪念座谈会发表评论后说:“作为这些限制的结果,我认为已经不可能步入新项目发展的正确轨道了,此种轨道只有在我们获得真正的预算后才能身处其中。鉴于此,我认为:‘我们2012财年在新项目的发展方面能投入的资金将和国会授权的资金一样多’这一想法有些过时了”。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 韩鸿硕 王宜晓)








  虽然授权法案给了NASA 90天时间选定一种适合新体系架构的设计方案并将建造计划报告给国会,但NASA并没有在2011年1月向国会提交初步设计报告,而是许诺在春天提供更多细节。









      然而,博尔登称:NASA并不期望“至少用一年时间”征求工业界对重型运载火箭研发的建议。他说火箭和乘员舱项目必须“负担得起、具有可持续性和可实现性”,因此NASA将为新体系结构寻求外部成本估算。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 韩鸿硕 王宜晓)  

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-4-26 17:43 | 显示全部楼层

SLS planning focuses on dual phase approach opening with SD HLV
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2 ... ach-opening-sd-hlv/


没目标,需求不明确。还有的扯皮  发表于 2011-4-26 19:13
delta4heavy 发表于 2011-4-26 20:50 | 显示全部楼层
zhang 发表于 2011-4-27 00:45 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 zhang 于 2011-4-27 01:01 编辑

NASA 就是把 HLV 分 2 个阶段,第一阶段没有商业商业公司什么事,设计基本确定,  Phase I SLS 或 70mt SD HLV (Block 0) 从 2016 开始发射 4 次。发射台 Pad 39A。Phase II SLS 或 130mt HLV, 设计还没有定,可能是 RP-1 的,可能是从 EELV 过来的,甚至是 SpaceX Super Heavy. Phase II 在 2020 从 Pad 39B 发射进行 BEO 任务。

Phase I 将用掉 12 个剩余的 SSME, 对 ATK 也是一种安慰。问题是没有 upper stage  的 70t payload 能干什么呢?

LM 的计划是 MPCV 在 2013 开始测试飞行, 2016 开始载人。时间和 Phase I SLS 一样。

 楼主| hkhtg090201 发表于 2011-5-23 19:36 | 显示全部楼层







  NASA马歇尔太空飞行中心J-2X涡轮机主管加里•根奇说:“为了验证所需部件的寿命,在最终完成J-2X发动机设计前,我们就这一问题进行了许多设计和分析工作。我们着眼于进行令人印象深刻的设计改进,但对部件几何结构的改变将产生我们希望避免的下游影响(downstream effect)。同时历史数据表明,采用改进的材料和进行较小变更的新设计是可以接受的”。



  J-2X 10001是第一台从生产线下线的发动机,正在NASA斯坦尼斯航天中心全力进行装配。全尺寸发动机试验将在2011年6月开始。J-2X发动机由普拉特•惠特尼•洛克达因公司为NASA马歇尔太空飞行中心设计建造。(中国航天工程咨询中心 陈杰 陈菲)