# NASA creates the most powerful rocket ever built



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2015)

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasas-sls-launch-system-to-mars-is-most-powerful-rocket-2015-2



> Right now, NASA is constructing a monster rocket, called the Space Launch System, that will be the most powerful rocket ever built.
> 
> This rocket is designed for NASA's future deep-space missions. It will launch four astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft toward far-off destination, which could include an asteroid and even Mars in the not-to0-distant future.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

Looks like NASA got out of its slump.  Good, good!


----------



## bubbleawsome (Feb 9, 2015)

This is an amazing rocket.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2015)

You can view about 30 or so more images from the gallery here.  For example:


----------



## OneMoar (Feb 9, 2015)

assuming it doesn't xplode on the launch pad
ho-hum
NASA isn't really relevant anymore 
spaceX and projects like it has done more interesting and beneficial stuff in the past year then NASA has done in the last 4


----------



## Arrakis9 (Feb 9, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> assuming it doesn't xplode on the launch pad
> ho-hum
> NASA isn't really relevant anymore
> spaceX and projects like it has done more interesting and beneficial stuff in the past year then NASA has done in the last 4



you can thank obama for cutting the budget and letting that sort of thing happen


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> assuming it doesn't xplode on the launch pad
> ho-hum
> NASA isn't really relevant anymore
> spaceX and projects like it has done more interesting and beneficial stuff in the past year then NASA has done in the last 4



IDK.  SpaceX's super heavy lift vehicle won't be ready until the mid 2020's.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2015)

http://www.spacex.com/falcon-heavy  spacex claims to be launching a rocket twice as powerful as any other this year. 

I would not say nasa is out of the game in anyway..  just making a rocket more powerful is not going to allow people to hop on board and take a ride where only probes have gone.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2015)

I don't really know, but if I were to guess I would say that the idea behind a heavy lift vehicle is to get all of the gear you need for a round trip up in one launch rather than multiple launches.  The SLS can loft 70 metric tons.  I don't think Falcon can do even half of that.  Which is fine if you plan to build your ship in orbit or send multiple modules to your destination.  But it seems to me that might complicate things.

edit:  OK just looked at the falcon heavy link.  If they actually get it to work, it looks like it would provide some competition for SLS.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2015)

makes since..  I dont see spacex working on ion engines and who even knows what else nasa doesn't talk about with all the military collaboration.


----------



## AsRock (Feb 9, 2015)

Arrakis+9 said:


> you can thank obama for cutting the budget and letting that sort of thing happen



O please, you really think it's him who did it, i man no insult to the American people but their just puppets to take the blame and some one new every few years.

Anyways.


OneMoar said:


> assuming it doesn't xplode on the launch pad
> ho-hum
> NASA isn't really relevant anymore
> spaceX and projects like it has done more interesting and beneficial stuff in the past year then NASA has done in the last 4



Are they privately funded ?.  Maybe NASA need to ask the American people for money for their projects and no relay on government.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2015)

It really does suck that NASA gets no respect in terms of funding.  Some sort of public-private collaboration for funding purposes would be a good way to go.  But I think having competition from the likes of SpaceX helps.  It just looks bad to have a private company doing a better job of exploration than the agency that was created to do it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> spaceX and projects like it has done more interesting and beneficial stuff in the past year then NASA has done in the last 4


They've been transitioning their focus.  In the past decade, they were mostly focused on near Earth launches with the shuttles.  They stopped doing that, transitioning that role away from NASA to private programs like SpaceX in order to free up resources to do more ambitious things like land a drone on an asteroid and get man to Mars.  The SLS appears to be what will accomplish the former but they'll need an even bigger rocket to do the latter.  SpaceX isn't anywhere even close to the Saturn V rocket.  NASA is for science; SpaceX is for profit.


As I've said before in many other threads: NASA should incorporated into the Department of Defense as a civilian, public arm of the Pentagon.  Their purpose often overlaps (look at the space suits SR-71 pilots/engineers used, this SLS would work for delivering a 70 ton hydrogen bomb to any place on Earth, and the next generation of bombers will likely be hypersonic bouncing on the edge of the atmosphere that NASA could help with and learn much from).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 9, 2015)

Go NASA....  .....get those massive payloads in to space

Competition stimulates innovation and progress. Any agency that can keep us up in space gets my vote.



Britain used to be at the forefront of rocket technology (in a Wallace and Gromit fashion) ... * Black Arrow  .......*.if you like videos here is one. We build a lot of the stuff at the pointy end nowadays.
*









*
This is the Russian heavy lift equivalent   The *Angara 100*  (proposed) will lift 100 metric tonnes
*










http://www.khrunichev.ru/ *........more on Russian Space Stuff


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

xfia said:


> makes since..  I dont see spacex working on ion engines and who even knows what else nasa doesn't talk about with all the military collaboration.


Ion engines are for low acceleration, long duration missions. They are high specific impulse and can achieve high velocity (in theory 0.3-0.4c) but it would take tens of years to accelerate and then to slow down again. So they are not really viable for human missions but for robotic ones. At that is once you are in space. You still need high thrust engines to escape the earth's gravity and that's where these big rockets come in



AsRock said:


> O please, you really think it's him who did it, i man no insult to the American people but their just puppets to take the blame and some one new every few years.


IDK who did it but NASAs budget is at all time low at % of federal budget if you don't count the first 2 years it was formed. In 1966 (moon missions) it had 4.4%, in 1972 it was about 1.5% (space shuttle program starts) and now it's at less than 0.5% of the total budget


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

Arrakis+9 said:


> you can thank obama for cutting the budget and letting that sort of thing happen



Yup. He slashed their budget by 90%, said we were scrapping Mars, and told all the eggheads that instead of using their brains they should concentrate on public outreach, whtever the hell THAT is. That was soon after taking office.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2015)

maybe some new two part ion engine could take people farther than ever. I was really just saying rockets that use a lot fuel are not furthering much.. I guess they are good for putting bigger holes in the ozone layer. we need some real innovation and my money would be on nasa to do so over spacex since they have been doing so since day one leading to changing most peoples everyday life.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

Isn't SpaceX plan one way, no return possible? I recall reading in depth article which was to keep sending 3 people at 2 year intervals, interspersed with heavy equipment and supplies. It's alot easier to do a space mission if you dont have to plan on the return dynamics. and only plan on building a colony/conducting assisted suicide.


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

xfia said:


> maybe some new two part ion engine could take people farther than ever. I was really just saying rockets that use a lot fuel are not furthering much.. I guess they are good for putting bigger holes in the ozone layer. we need some real innovation and my money would be on nasa to do so over spacex since they have been doing so since day one leading to changing most peoples everyday life.


It really doesnt work that way. Current ion and other electric propulsion high specific impulse engines have thrust in the range of 10^-3 Newtons while launchers have thrust in the order of 10^6 Newtons. That is 9 order of magnitudes difference.  For this to work probably a fusion reactor would be necessary (and even then it needs to have enough thrust to lift it's own weight + cargo).  Unfortunately at the moment we are stuck with chemical rockets for going into LEO. Now if they could make those nano-carbon tubes going and make a space elevator, that would be a cheap way to orbit


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2015)

I think I have seen dr michio kaku talking about a space elevator before. he certainly has a vision of the future.  
*https://video.search.yahoo.com/vide...a&sigb=12sh10tgc&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001*


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

xfia said:


> I think I have seen dr michio kaku talking about a space elevator before. he certainly has a vision of the future.


A japanese company said they plan to build a space elevator by 2050. I just hope i live to see it


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> Yup. He slashed their budget by 90%, said we were scrapping Mars, and told all the eggheads that instead of using their brains they should concentrate on public outreach, whtever the hell THAT is. That was soon after taking office.


He needed to fund Obamacare.  Can't spend $15 billion on space projects when he just created a $200 billion budget deficit due to the largely unfunded healthcare exchanges and Medicaid expansion (which is already barely solvent).  Oh and with Medicaid, the federal and state governments jointly fund that.  States had to make cuts too to expand Medicare.


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2015)

Spoiler: Off Topic



The Federal Deficit did fall last year even with Obama Care to the lowest level since 2008. The Federal Debt is up to 18 trillion dollars now. That's more than our GNP. If you are a Baby Boomer then that debt will be paid for by your children and grandchildren in some way.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> He needed to fund Obamacare.  Can't spend $15 billion on space projects when he just created a $200 billion budget deficit due to the largely unfunded healthcare exchanges and Medicaid expansion (which is already barely solvent).  Oh and with Medicaid, the federal and state governments jointly fund that.  States had to make cuts too to expand Medicare.



Cut half the foreign aid the US sends overseas every year. There, I just funded national health care, NASA, rebuilding the crumbling transportation infrastructure, and pretty much anything else you want.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

Actually, that's a popular misconception. It makes for good hysteria though. Foreign Aid is really a small part of the U.S. Budget.


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

Lopez0101 said:


> Cut half the foreign aid the US sends overseas every year. There, I just funded national health care, NASA, rebuilding the crumbling transportation infrastructure, and pretty much anything else you want.


Us economic foreign aid in 2012 31 billion, nasa's budget in 2012 ~18 billion.




Spoiler


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

krusha03 said:


> Us economic foreign aid in 2012 31 billion, nasa's budget in 2012 ~18 billion.



There, see? Foreign aid wouldn't fund 15% of Obamacare. Cutting it affects virtually nothing.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 9, 2015)

Fine, cut corporate welfare. I'd rather citizens get welfare than corporations that aren't people. Also, I consider military campagins in foreign countries "foreign aid". Let the middle east fight amongst themselves.


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

Lopez0101 said:


> Fine, cut corporate welfare. I'd rather citizens get welfare than corporations that aren't people. Also, I consider military campagins in foreign countries "foreign aid".* Let the middle east fight amongst themselves.*


That's an interesting thing to say after going there and stirring things up in the first place but lets not go into politics now


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

@Lopez0101 Although you've now raced off beyond the funding, or lack thereof, of NASA, and into general politics, i assume by corporate welfare, you mean tax breaks.

What exactly do you understand of the principles of economics, both macro and micro, and how versed are you in business practices? Corporations go where it is cheapest to operate. So, if you would like to send the remainder of U.S. jobs to other countries, you're welcome to try, and then tell me your solution to the real economic mess that follows.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

64K said:


> The Federal Deficit did fall last year even with Obama Care to the lowest level since 2008.


Because of sequester which Obama/Reid never thought House Republicans would allow.  They also increased the rate on the top tax bracket last year I believe as a concession for something else (can't remember what).  So, slightly smaller government + slightly higher taxes = reduce deficit slightly.  Both of these things happened in spite of Obama and yes, they still want to axe Obamacare too.




rtwjunkie said:


> Actually, that's a popular misconception. It makes for good hysteria though. Foreign Aid is really a small part of the U.S. Budget.


Edit: $50 billion in 2012. That's a lot more than NASA gets.

But, there's about 20 asterisks on that because it depends on what you're counting.

NASA is where scientists went that wanted to help mankind instead of ruining it.  NASA hasn't really been hiring for decades and DoD does most of their work through private contractors so...the best minds end up at defense corporations where they continue to prepare for a war that may never come.


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2015)

US Corporate Taxes are already the highest in the Developed World.

"Corporate Tax Rates Are the Highest in the Developed World. The U.S. total corporate tax rate is at *39.1 percent*, the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. The high rate reduces investment in the U.S. and costs American workers jobs and higher wages."







http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/corporate-tax-rate


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

No, it means they do economically silly things for writeoffs (e.g. IRS owed GE money but they decided to be patriots and pay some taxes anyway to stop their PR from tanking) and profits made overseas stay overseas because repatriation of funds is so costly.

Keep in mind that even though small business tax rates are less, they can't evade them like corporations can evade corporate taxes.  At the end of the day, the small businesses end up paying far more in taxes than corporations do as a function of income.


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because of sequester which Obama/Reid never thought House Republicans would allow.  They also increased the rate on the top tax bracket last year I believe as a concession for something else (can't remember what).  So, slightly smaller government + slightly higher taxes = reduce deficit slightly.  Both of these things happened in spite of Obama and yes, they still want to axe Obamacare too.



It did fall by a good bit last year.

*Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers*
*
Obama Deficits*
FY 2014: $483 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
_

*Bush Deficits*_
FY 2009†: $1,413 bln
FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2006: $248 bln
FY 2005: $318 bln

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_deficit_chart.html


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

64K said:


> It did fall by a good bit last year.
> 
> *Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers*
> *Obama Deficits*
> ...


 
True.  But...did you check out this year's proposal he just sent to Congress?  Staggering.  IIRC, it's almost 4 TRILLION dollars, and short about a TRILLION.  That puts it right back to FY 2009.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 9, 2015)

Biggest e-peen in rocket history


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2015)

rtwjunkie said:


> True.  But...did you check out this year's proposal he just sent to Congress?  Staggering.



Yeah, that will get whittled down a little and Obama knows it. the projected deficit is going up by 100 billion this year to 583 billion. btw I'm not an Obama supporter or an advocate of Obama Care but medical care for the poor was getting paid for one way or another before Obama Care. Either by government subsidies or increased charges at hospitals to make up for the poor showing up in emergency rooms (and not paying anything) for minor things that could have been taken care of by a doctor visit. The emergency room is a much more expensive way to treat minor things.


----------



## Lopez0101 (Feb 9, 2015)

The business will only go overseas as long as those places keep their workers wages depressed. Once those places start to get higher standards of living because of all the jobs, those businesses will have to go somewhere. At what point does that end? When there is value given to humanity over excessive profits, or what?

And yeah, never should have gotten the middle east started, but that doesn't mean we can't do our best to get the hell out of there. I've been to Afghanistan and Iraq, the money wasted is pretty staggering.

I don't know a ton about coporate taxes and stuff, sure, but I'd say I've read enough about the biggest ones tax dodging through obvious foreign accounts to be able to make an educated guess that there is a lot more money involved in other areas. Tens of billions is tens of billions no matter which way you swing it. What could NASA do with just 5 billion more? Or the state of government scientific grants, how many more projects could be funded?


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Edit: $50 billion in 2012. That's a lot more than NASA gets.
> 
> But, there's about 20 asterisks on that because it depends on what you're counting.


 
You're correct.  My point was in counter to Lopez, who felt he could fund everything under the sun if we cut foreign aid.  I was just pointing out his misconception.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

64K said:


> It did fall by a good bit last year.
> 
> *Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers*
> *
> ...


That cross is there for a reason.  It was Pelosi and Reid conspiring to spend like drunken sailors and put it on Bush's tab.  They never even bothered to stop it when Obama was sworn in.  I still don't know where that $1 trillion year over year went to because I guarantee you none of us saw it.

As far as I know, Congress still hasn't passed a budget that became law since 2007.  They kept kicking the can down the road because none of them can agree how to pick the can up.

NASA as well as the Department of Energy took proportionally large cuts during the last decade compared to other agencies.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Feb 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That cross is there for a reason.  It was basically Congressional sabotage by only passing part of Bush's budget then taking many hundreds of billions on to the budget to the items that they set aside until they saw the 2012 election results.  D.C. then operated without a budget for many years and, because of sequester+tax hikes, is now getting inline with what the deficit was before that sabotage.
> 
> As far as I know, Congress still hasn't passed a budget that become law since 2007.  They keep kicking the can down the road because none of them can agree how to pick the can up.
> 
> NASA as well as the Department of Energy took proportionally large cuts during the last decade compared to other agencies.


 
Thank-you  for bringing us back to the issue at hand, which is the disproportional cut in budget given to NASA, and their return to actual exploration of space(thanks to finally having some money)!


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

I am just gonna leave this here:






One option would be to put NASA into the defense budget. But what you have to understand for nasa and the rest of the aerospace industry in the US ITAR is already a big problem for sales abroad. Put nasa (and with that regulations will probably also follow to rest of the space companies) and things are becoming much more complicated. How about 10% of that defense budget is given back to research institutions, education, health care etc.

In netherlands the government wanted to cut funding for ESA (NASA of europe) as well. But then a research was made and for every euro netherlands invested, 7 euros where made down the line. Also ESA threatened to close their center in NL and go to Belgium or germany so luckily the government changed their mind


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

USA patrols the oceans unlike anyone else which is some 70% of the planet.  If something happens anywhere on Earth, who is usually one of the first responders?

Yeah, yeah, we can argue until we're blue in the face if that's sound policy but it is what it is.  USA has been the world's GhostBusters since WW2.



krusha03 said:


> In netherlands the government wanted to cut funding for ESA (NASA of europe) as well. But then a research was made and for every euro netherlands invested, 7 euros where made down the line. Also ESA threatened to close their center in NL and go to Belgium or germany so luckily the government changed their mind


NASA has a similar return on investment.  Problem is Washington, D.C., is very disconnected from NASA so they get thrown under the bus over, and over, and over again.  This is what happens when your paymasters forget you exist.


----------



## xfia (Feb 9, 2015)

all in the name of peace right?  you don't have to answer that.. 

I think some of that defense budget flows to nasa.. who ya gonna call when you want something to fly?


----------



## krusha03 (Feb 9, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> USA patrols the oceans unlike anyone else which is some 70% of the planet.  If something happens anywhere on Earth, who is usually one of the first responders?
> 
> Yeah, yeah, we can argue until we're blue in the face if that's sound policy but it is what it is.  USA has been the world's GhostBusters since WW2.
> 
> ...


Plus i bet they dont have as strong lobby as the weapons manufacturers 

On a side note, due to budget cuts netherlands doesn't have tanks anymore


----------



## hardcore_gamer (Feb 9, 2015)

Guys, I tried simulating this on KSP. It works /s


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

xfia said:


> I think some of that defense budget flows to nasa.. who ya gonna call when you want something to fly?


USAF


----------



## 64K (Feb 9, 2015)

I remember seeing some high level Department of Defense representatives testifying before a Congressional Committee that no one at the DoD knew where all of the money was going due in part to Black Ops. Who knows if some is going to NASA for something that the DoD couldn't make public or admit too.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2015)

NASA naturally doesn't see anything that is top secret.  Projects that NASA and USAF work on jointly are very public (e.g. the X aircraft).


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 10, 2015)

I hate politics and politicians, i do love rockets though.

Im thinking about starting a rocket thread.
TedhPowerUp up and away.

There is a lot of development going on with regards reusable craft and parts and new fuels and technology.

Perhaps someone should start a new thread
" should US  citizens pay for space exploration through taxation?"


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2015)

CAPSLOCKSTUCK said:


> " should US  citizens pay for space exploration through taxation?"


Yes, because to turn a profit from space would likely cost in excess of a trillion dollars.  No private company would go there.  The investment is too great, the risks are enormous, the rewards are difficult to justify (e.g. what would a asteroid/planet have that's so valuable, so in demand that warrants spending a trillion dollars to obtain).

Private companies wouldn't invest in space exploration unless the lion's share of them agree the Earth is dying and form a coalition to get it done.


I'm firm in my believe that space exploration should be among the highest priorities of the federal government and not just the USA--globally.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Feb 10, 2015)

I adore Wernher von Braun as a Idol and a Man who pursued his dream no matter what it would cost - we should open a rocket thread for sure. I wan't to giggle with someone when some some Proton carrying glon-ass satellites fells down... again and again .

And about the US taxes... mates there are non US peps here too... Well I am also unpleasant that all hardware that costs you in $ we have the same number in Euro/Pounds, and the price for gasoline... So the moral is... each place have some specifics and heavy taxes are everywhere, they may be just differently realized.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 10, 2015)

I'd argue that some 70% of the DoD budget should be shifted to space R&D.  Imagine an aircraft carrier in near-Earth orbit.  Wouldn't need a dozen aircraft carriers anymore, would we?  It would also be a major step towards building something that can not only travel to Mars, but be a launching pad for colonizing the planet and potentially terraforming it.

Until humanity, collectively ,makes a decision that is best to leave the planet rather than fight over the little space we occupy on Earth, the future looks dim.  Everything we need is out there in a damn near unlimited supply--what's there to fight about?  It's like fusion power, except even better.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Feb 10, 2015)

Early manned satellites/space stations were almost entirely for military purposes.


----------



## revin (Feb 12, 2015)

Wiki of Comprison of Orbitl Engines
Even has ION, HALL, and EM listed.
But my alltime favorite has to be the F1 !!
I can remember sitting in front of the TV watching, then stayed up all nite watching {CNN?} cover the first Shuttle launch.


----------



## revin (Feb 12, 2015)

Here's a REAL Fuel Pump !!








 
For *one* of these bad boys !!









 
FWIW The Saturn F1 was THE largest Single Nozzle engine, vs. the Russin Combined nozzle engine.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 12, 2015)

They used to have one at the Air and space museum in DC.  It's pretty impressive especially when you consider the Saturn V had 5 of them.


----------



## revin (Feb 13, 2015)

twilyth said:


> It's pretty impressive


 

Took a trip to Cape Canavrial Florida in the '90's, [taking the 3 girls to Disney, my mom lived in Port Orange] and got a full day at the space complex, tour thru a shuttle, all the C&C bunkers did both Red and Blue tour's, and yes indeed they have a full Saturn 5.
Between it and the VAB, fracking Humongious !!! Oh yes the crawler, awesome ! Lot of other missles ect...
Best part, the Shuttle on the launch pad, they had a zone restriction, but it was beautiful 





Google pic, mine are paper somewhere


----------



## twilyth (Feb 13, 2015)

I had completely forgotten about this until you just mentioned it, but I remember now taking a tour of the cape one summer when we went to the keys, did some visiting, etc.  The thing I remember about the vehicle assembly building was the fact that it had its own weather systems.  It was so tall that under certain conditions they would get clouds inside and sometimes it could actually rain.


----------

