Human Mission to an Asteroid: Getting There With the New Space Launch System

by Nancy Atkinson on September 29, 2011

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

The new SLS on the launchpad. Credit: NASA

With NASA’s announcement of its new, mammoth Space Launch System (SLS), preparations can begin in earnest for the first human mission to an asteroid. The SLS will take the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) on the first human forays into deep space, out of the Earth/Moon system. “We are definitely excited about it,” Laurence Price, Lockheed Martin’s Orion deputy program manager told Universe Today during a briefing last week. “It is very good to get this baselined and be able to move forward.”

Lockheed Martin has been working on the Orion MPCV, which was originally part of the Constellation program to return to the Moon. But NASA has now been given a presidential directive to land astronauts on an asteroid by 2025, a mission that some say represents the most ambitious and audacious plan yet for the space agency. Orion will likely be re-worked and updated for potential “stepping stone” missions that will take humans to possible destinations such as lunar orbit, the Lagrange points, asteroids, and potentially the moons of Mars. The ultimate destination on this path is to send humans to the Red Planet.

Stepping stone destinations on the way to Mars. Credit: Lockheed Martin.

Billed as the biggest rocket ever built, the first incarnation of NASA’s SLS heavy-lift booster — which was unveiled on Sept. 14, 2011 – will stand over 30 stories tall, have a mass of 2.5 million kg (5.5 million pounds) and use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, with 5 space shuttle main engines and an improved J-2X engine for the upper stage. (NASA just tested one of those engines). The SLS will have an initial lift capacity of 70 metric tons (mT), or about 69,853 kg (154,000 pounds) of payload into low Earth orbit. For reference, that’s more than double the lift capacity of any current launch vehicle, and it is estimated to be able to generate 10% more thrust than the Saturn 5 rockets produced at liftoff, the launchers that sent the Apollo missions to the Moon.

Later, to send the Orion and a service module out into space, the SLS would add two more RD-25D/E engines on the first stage, and the “evolved” architecture would be able to lift 130 metric tons, or 129,727 kg (286,000 pounds) of mass to low Earth orbit. This would increase the mass of the stack to 2.6 million kg (6.5 million pounds) and it would stand as tall as a 40-story building. This configuration would enable thrust of 4.2 million kg (9.2 million pounds), 20% more than the Saturn 5.

But Lockheed Martin is still in the initial stages of learning about the capabilities and timelines of the new launch system so they can produce the best version of Orion to pair with the SLS.

“While there are some challenges,” Price said, “we have been looking at various configurations of the architecture over the past year, so a lot of work has already been going on. So, any of the initial challenges, we have already worked toward mitigating.”

There are several differences between SLS and Constellation, Price said, with SLS having potentially a liquid booster with solid strap-ons instead of a solid first stage. “But we’ve been flying in space for 50 years and all the analytical tools to predict the environments, flight trajectories and flight conditions are all fairly straightforward, and we’re working to close on it. The launch vehicle design change is not a big perturbation on our ability to continue to mature the vehicle.”

In factoring the capability of how much mass the SLS can launch to deep space, Lockheed Martin can begin to work on how they would manifest the various parts of the mission.

“For example, would we launch the two spacecraft together on one rocket,” said Josh Hopkins from Lockheed Martin, in an interview with Universe Today, “and like Apollo, go to deep space quickly, or would we do what Constellation was planning, where you’d launch the larger pieces on the heavy lift vehicle and launch the crew separately on a second launch and connect them in Earth orbit?”

Hopkins is the Principal Investigator for Advanced Human Exploration Missions at Lockheed Martin, and leads a team of engineers who develop plans and concepts for a variety of future human exploration missions, including visits to asteroids.

The Orion casule in an Acoustic Chamber for testing at Lockheed Martin. Credit: Lockheed Martin

“If the two are launched separately,” Hopkins continued, “then you’d have to allocate a few days in orbit to have the two hook up, or one scrubbed launch could ruin the attempt. So those are the top level kinds of things we are looking forward to finding out from NASA. At the detailed level, we’re working on things like what the flight environments will be like, how much load will the spacecraft see. What we’ve inferred from the studies we’ve been doing is that we think that Orion is already designed to a pretty rigorous set of acoustics, dynamic pressure and G-loads during ascent.”

“We already know a lot about this vehicle, its environment, load conditions and trajectory,” Price said, “so we are accommodating the unique capability of the launch vehicle into the design of the Orion MPCV. We are already converging on how this vehicle will fly, and as soon as possible, we will transition to flying our test flights on early versions of the SLS.”

Lockheed Martin is targeting late 2013 or early 2014 for their first flight test of the Orion MPCV and they have reserved a Delta 4 Heavy for an unpiloted launch from Kennedy Space Center, but they are still evaluating what launcher would be best.

“We are identifying what the best test booster will be,” Price said, “and are trying to maximize the benefit to both programs, the launch system maturation and our spacecraft.”

An artist's concept shows the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle and future destinations for human exploration beyond Earth orbit: the moon, an asteroid and Mars. Credit: NASA

As far as actually sending humans to an asteroid, there are many details to be worked out, and NASA and Lockheed Martin must allow for all the unknowns of flying humans in deep space, including a very important one of making sure humans can endure the radiation environment in space.

Hopkins said the robotic spacecraft that have flown to asteroids and Mars have tested the environment of deep space. “So, we have elegant models of how to design systems to withstand radiation shielding,” he said, “even though we don’t know the effect of deep space radiation on people, and what the environments around small asteroids actually like.” Hopkins added that redundant systems for keeping humans safe are an integral part of Orion’s design, but NASA might also first send a robotic scout mission to visit an asteroid.

Yes, there’s much to be worked out to actually send humans to an asteroid. But one initial item of importance is knowing the timing of when SLS will be ready to do a human deep space mission, as that would determine what asteroids we’d be able to go to.

And finding an asteroid that is just right is going to be a challenge, too. We’ll discuss that in the next in our series of articles on a human asteroid mission.

Previous articles in this series:

Human Mission to an Asteroid: Why Should NASA Go?

Human Mission to an Asteroid: The Orion MPCV

About 

Nancy Atkinson is Universe Today's Senior Editor. She also is the host of the NASA Lunar Science Institute podcast and works with Astronomy Cast. Nancy is also a NASA/JPL Solar System Ambassador.

The Math Skeptic September 29, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Would there be any utility to parking an upper-stage booster at the Earth-Sun L2 or the Earth-Moon L4/L5 points for use in a deep-space mission, so the crew vehicle doesn’t have to launch with the upper stage?

Anonymous September 30, 2011 at 1:12 AM

Short answer: Yes. Some consider it preferable to doing the same in LEO, and even propose a permanent manned facility there as a way-point for many deep space missions.

Marcel Williams September 29, 2011 at 6:35 PM

We’re not going to an asteroid or to Mars using the SLS unless we figure out a way to protect the human brain from the deleterious effects of heavy nuclei bombardment without the need for several hundred tonnes of mass shielding.

So such manned interplanetary journeys will probably not occur until the age of nuclear space rockets or titanic light sail vehicles.

John September 30, 2011 at 3:43 AM

I hope we get to Mars in my lifetime. I’m 55. Vastly better yet, confirming radio signals from an alien civilization. As far as going to Mars, I don’t know where the money is going to come from. Will the Chinese and others keep lending us enough as we go ever deeeeeper into debt?

Torbjörn Larsson September 30, 2011 at 1:25 PM

In debt no one can hear you scream.

Anonymous September 30, 2011 at 7:32 AM

I see Lockhead martin are on form and is already looking for ways to add costs to there bit of the project.

What worries me through, is fact that there seem to be no plans to place permanent, reusable hardware up there. If they have to keep launching several SLS up there for every mission to Mars or Asteroid belts, the chances of Congress providing that money over the decades for the repeated missions needed to establish colonies an bases out there decreases. We need to make sure that the much of the Infrastructure use on these missions is reusable so that over time the cost per mission decreases.

Torbjörn Larsson September 30, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I like the “Stepping Stones” realization of Flexible Path! Thanks for adding all the whistles and bells on this article.

I like it except, of course, for the Big Dumb Booster that is rumored to be destined to eat up the budget and give no room for actual missions. As it is, it looks like a synopsis of “we could have done that” instead.

And on that BDB, the final version has ~ 20 % more thrust than the man-rated Saturn V but can’t deliver more than ~ 10 % more to orbit (130 ton LEO payload vs 120 ton)?

Perhaps we see the failure of scales that makes the BDB around 5 – 10 times as costly as a launcher half as capable, purely for political pork.* Raise two of those, and the mission is still much cheaper.

I am sorry to come out all negative. On the positive side I think SpaceX may have the better infrastructure for this, at least on the launcher side and soon on the manrated capsule side. (Except maybe the travel/lander habitat, the proposed use of the Constellation Moon buggy seems like a good choice.) And within a single company!

In the cheaper scheme at least, there is nothing except politics to prevent NASA from choosing SpaceX for the unmanned payload and a more tested (but not for manned launch) Atlas or Delta for the capsule launch.

Btw, I have to go Ivan on a quote for the benefit of UT, third from last paragraph. It seems to me as two problems exist: “withstand radiation shielding” and “what the environments around small asteroids actually like”.

Whether the environments around small asteroids throw up at the thought of radiation shielding I don’t know, but the latter problem doesn’t seem like a spoken error. A misquote?

————–
* And likely still circulating ideas of “launch potency/booster envy”, “national prestige” and “war technology”. You would think we could leave those behind when we venture out in space. But no!?

grampie1 September 30, 2011 at 2:39 PM

looks like a hulked up delta 2 with an apollo crew cabin . the satrun v was allso a 2 space craft system w/o the bosters i see lots of spare parts there lockeed, but with todays mico elelectronics you should be able to stuff more into a retro rockets from the past if funds are the problem search out the syfi people they spend 7.1 billion on fiction not fact good chunk of money even if just a 1/3 was spent on fact . time to look for funds from the fans of space not oil rigs.

Gregory Peterson September 30, 2011 at 6:03 PM

Hey, Nancy, 1 metric ton (or ‘tonne’) is exactly 1000 kg. Metric is easy that way.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: