They still have no idea what they’re going to do after thye run out of SSMEs.
As I noted on Twitter:
If a Martian looked at this program, it'd say, "Well, sure don't have anything to worry about from these lunatics.: http://t.co/JcChYaQSgG
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 21, 2014
[Afternoon update]
Contra Dan Dumbacher's crazytown Huffpo editorial, SLS is not a "highway" to the solar system. It's a dead-end railroad siding.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) November 21, 2014
Because that strategy worked so well for Orbital with Antares…
Any design that doesn’t start with the engine is just bass ackwards. What an expensive joke.
Everyone knew from day one the funding for this boondoggle would never last past those engines so why build a different one?
God, what a circus.
Color me not surprised. Maybe they will buy some slightly used RD-171 from Russia or Ukraine.
NASA could do worse than that and probably will.
Hmm. I wonder how, or even if, this fits in with a solicitation for more RS-25s that appeared in March of last year:
http://tinyurl.com/poabpjk
SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEMS CORE STAGE ENGINE PRODUCTION RESTART
Solicitation Number: SLS-LEO-NNM13ZPS001L
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 13, 2013 11:17 am
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) is seeking potential sources with the capability to provide six additional human-rated, flight-certified, high-performance liquid rocket Core Stage Engines (CSEs) in support of the Space Launch System (SLS) Program flight manifest. On September 14, 2011, NASA announced the SLS vehicle architecture with a manifested first flight in late 2017. The CSE in this architecture is the RS-25 engine (derived from the Space Shuttle Main Engine). The early SLS flights will utilize all remaining RS-25 engines from the Space Shuttle Program. However, six additional CSEs are needed to support the first four launches (with first engine delivery in the 2023 timeframe) and to establish the production infrastructure necessary for continued, affordable program support.
[snip]
With regard to Dumbacher’s op-ed, one especially perplexing(*) bit was “Orion is designed as a long-duration spacecraft that will allow us to undertake human missions to Mars – a two year round trip.” Last I heard Orion was designed to support a crew of four for 21 days, plus a 6-month uncrewed loiter capability. Mars trips take a bit longer than that.
(*) It’s tempting to use “mendacious”, but “perplexing” will do.
I kind of doubt SLS is enough for the kind of Mars missions envisioned in the late 1960s. To use SLS for a Mars mission requires some kind of ISRU ala Mars Direct or it will not work. Plus the real SLS second stage. Not the toy Delta-IV derived second stage.
As for Orion I doubt it would be used exclusively you would need some kind of vehicle for the duration mission and Orion would dock to it. Or something like that. Orion was developed for Constellation so I think the main primary goal was a Moon mission not a Mars mission. Some of the components are probably designed for that but you wouldn’t launch just Orion to Mars.
Without propellant depots and a step by step approach that uses intermediate bases I think doing Mars missions in a direct way will not be economically sustainable.