SLS/orion is pure pork payoff to the old school NASA contractors. Total waste of money. Kill this redundant pos now please.

This could do everything SLS could do and more..for less. And will fly next year.
Falcon Heavy..
http://www.gizmag.com/spacex-falcon-heavy-rocket/18348/

I'm glad ATK was able to get this contract. ATK lost money (underbid) on their contract to build the sabilators for the F-22. I had the chance to do an ultrasonic inspection of some carbon fiber X brace panels while I worked there, it's great for showing delamination defects in composites. They did a great job with overhauling the Pegasus and other ICBM missiles; there truly aren't a lot of facilities with their capabilities.

@ Brain Mc - I agree completely. HUGE waste of money that could be spent on much better space related things, like probes to Titan or Europa, or a million other destinations! NASA needs to gets it large bureaucratic ass out of the rocket building game.

SLS "will replace the historic Saturn V as the largest, most powerful space launch vehicle ever flown." Energia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia) had more power then SLS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System).

It's time for NASA to turn this well known tech over to the private sector. While we need gov to get things started, that was 60 yrs ago!!
Companies like SpaceX have proven they can for far less money do the jobs. Let's let them do it.
Other things like health care though business can't seem to handle gouging, bankrupting us so gov should step in there where Gov has proved in many countries they do better for 50% less cost.

SLS is not scheduled to enter service until 2019 or later. The 2017 flight would be an unmanned test flight, if it happens.

@ Misha - If this gets built (and I hope it doesn't) it would eventually be a largest rocket ever. The 70 metric ton is just one configuration, it will go as high has 130 metric tons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SLS_configurations.png
@ Brian - NASA is building a SUPER heavy, not just a heavy. So no, Space X's Falcon heavy couldn't lift near what NASA's SLS could. That said, Musk has talked about building a super heavy if the need was present. While I don't remember how much he said he thought he could build it for, one thing is clear, it would be FAAAAAAAR cheaper & quicker then NASA could build the equivalent for.
Space X is a phenomenal company. Not only are they cheaper then everyone else (per launch), but they push the boundaries of what is possible. NASA helped them get where they are, and soon NASA will be eating their dust. Which is great, NASA needs to focus on the science aspect, not building the rockets.
I hope all goes well on Falcon 9's sunday launch to the ISS!

agree with jerryd, Privitize the SLS & move into deep space NASA. Pvt sector can do SLS better alone., & produce faster vs govt style in 60s era.

The components for a heavy lift rocket already exist, they've existed for over 30 years.
Take the external fuel tank used for the shuttle. Modify the design to place the three shuttle main engines under its bottom end. Modify the top end to support a payload with the mass of a loaded Shuttle.
Want to lift more? Change the tank design to accommodate four of the solid booster rockets.
Another idea would be to add two smaller solid rockets to boost the empty external tank into orbit. Early in the Shuttle program there were plans to orbit the tanks for use in building space stations. That got axed in favor of dropping them in the oceans. Such a waste of millions of dollars of material.
Most of the engineering and design work already done so the cost would be far less than developing a new rocket to do the same job.
Too obvious and would save too much money.