It depends on which national security mission that we need to get. How many flights depends on which mission but we have a number of commercial customers for Falcon Heavy and so I it's not gonna be in any way an impediment to acceptance of national security missions. We'll be doing several heavy missions flights per year so, say there's a big national security satellite that's due for launch in three or four years and we're probably have like a dozen or more launches done by then.
I don't think launch number will be an inhibitor for national security stuff. And yeah so I think we've got the STP mission that's coming up which is another test mission that will go on falcon heavy block 5 and then we'll be launching block 5 single stick in a couple months so I think it's hopefully smooth sailing for qualification for national security missions.
Our investment to date probably a lot more than I'd like to admit. We tried to cancel the Falcon Heavy program three times at SpaceX because it's like 'man this is way harder than we thought'. The initial idea was just I thought you know you stick on two first stages of side boosters how hard can it be? It's like way hard.
We have to redesign the center core completely. We redesigned the grid fins, because well it's a long story but you've got a nose cone on the end of at the end of the booster instead of a cylinder, you lose control authority because if you if you've got a cylinder you can kind of bounce the air off of the rocket and you get like a 30% more increased control authority than if you've got a cylindrical section instead of a Ogive section at the end of the booster so we have to redesign the grid fins. Redesigning the control system.
Vastly redesigned the thrust structure at the base to take way more load - that center boosters got to deal with over a million pounds of load coming in combined from the site boosters so it ends up being heavier so that the center core basically complete redesign, and even the side boosters has a pretty large number of parts that change. Then the launch site itself needs to change a lot.
I'm guessing our total investment is over half a billion. Probably more.
Falcon Heavy opens up a new class of payload. It can launch more than twice as much payload as any other rocket in the world, so it's kind of up to customers what want. It can launch things direct to Pluto and beyond with no need for a gravity assist or anything. Launch giant satellites, it can do anything you want. You could send people back to the moon with a bunch of Falcon Heavy and an orbital refilling. Two or three falcon heavies would equal the payload of a Saturn Five.(full transcript in progress at https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43154.msg1784964#msg1784964 )
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
No impact to SLS. Remember, Falcon Heavy hasn't just come on the scene....in fact she's years late and SLS wasn't riding along a competitive path. The only rocket that will be muttering in a disgruntled manner will be Delta IV-Heavy.
The only rocket that will be muttering in a disgruntled manner will be Delta IV-Heavy.
$500 million to develop Falcon Heavy, compared to $2.5 billion per year on SLS development... We probably spend more money on SLS every year now than it took SpaceX to develop it's entire product line from scratch.
The only thing that could challenge SLS is someone in the USG deciding to actually start an exploration program using existing assets. Nothing directly would happen to SLS even then... it would just accelerate its slide into irrelevance, then oblivion.
But that assumes someone in the USG actually do something; also highly unlikely to happen.
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS?
Will there be consequences?
Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
Sorted by Payload Capability
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
- Ed Kyle
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
Sorted by Payload Capability
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
- Ed Kyle
No true at all.
SLS has zero payload capability, and will continue to have zero until around 2023-2024.
FH could launch 4 times per year (easily) in support of a BEO effort... that's 12,000 tonnes to LEO by the time SLS is operational, if the program picks up the pace a bit.
PowerPoints aren't real, Ed. You should know that.
You should also know 2019 for a test flight of SLS is fiction... 2020 if they are lucky, 2021 more likely... and that carries zero useful payload. 2021 for Block1B... hahaha.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
Sorted by Payload Capability
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
- Ed Kyle
No true at all.
SLS has zero payload capability, and will continue to have zero until around 2023-2024.
FH could launch 4 times per year (easily) in support of a BEO effort... that's 12,000 tonnes to LEO by the time SLS is operational, if the program picks up the pace a bit.
PowerPoints aren't real, Ed. You should know that.
You should also know 2019 for a test flight of SLS is fiction... 2020 if they are lucky, 2021 more likely... and that carries zero useful payload. 2021 for Block1B... hahaha.
Four launches a year is a powerpoint too.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.1) distributed lift.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
Sorted by Payload Capability
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
- Ed Kyle
No true at all.
SLS has zero payload capability, and will continue to have zero until around 2023-2024.
FH could launch 4 times per year (easily) in support of a BEO effort... that's 12,000 tonnes to LEO by the time SLS is operational, if the program picks up the pace a bit.
PowerPoints aren't real, Ed. You should know that.
You should also know 2019 for a test flight of SLS is fiction... 2020 if they are lucky, 2021 more likely... and that carries zero useful payload. 2021 for Block1B... hahaha.
Four launches a year is a powerpoint too.
No, it's not. What physical constrain is there if the USG ordered four FH's per year?
They might not have that many booked, but surely could fly them if a customer requested.
Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not.
It's possible that Elon has an alternate plan up his sleeve. I asked the question in another thread and had it answered that it was just about possible to do the lunar tourist flight with 2x Falcon 9 Block 5 launches.Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not.
The two people who bought tickets for that Lunar FRT flight next year aboard a Dragon 2 on a FH apparently didn't get the memo
Well, reality is one possible consideration. I know mods hate Tesla being mentioned here, but Musk hasn't had a stellar reputation estimating what his production flows are capable of.
When they launch 4 in a year, they will have reached that capability.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Distributed lift. So no. I don't think ANY B5 will be deliberately expended.How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Any Falcon Heavy lifting a heavy payload is also throwaway. And that'll be most of them, given that F9 can loft most commercial satellites.
Or one can also use them X times then throw away. Which is a very good compromise and makes for an incredibly flexible system. Doesn't have to be black and white.Distributed lift. So no. I don't think ANY B5 will be deliberately expended.How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Any Falcon Heavy lifting a heavy payload is also throwaway. And that'll be most of them, given that F9 can loft most commercial satellites.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy. Orion is crew capable. Falcon Heavy is not. Falcon Heavy cannot replace SLS/Orion. It is that simple.
Sorted by Payload Capability
==============================================================
Vehicle 1st Flt TransLunar TransMars GTO
==============================================================
SLS Blk 2 2028? >45,000 kg >37,600 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1B 2021? 39,000 kg 32,000 kg N/A
SLS Blk 1 2019? 24,500 kg 19,500 kg N/A
Falcon Heavy-X 2018? ~20,500 kg 16,800 kg 26,700 kg
Falcon Heavy 2018? ~5,500 kg ~4,900 kg 8,000 kg
==============================================================
"X" Denotes Expendable Version
- Ed Kyle
No true at all.
SLS has zero payload capability, and will continue to have zero until around 2023-2024.
FH could launch 4 times per year (easily) in support of a BEO effort... that's 1,200 tonnes to LEO by the time SLS is operational, if the program picks up the pace a bit.
PowerPoints aren't real, Ed. You should know that.
You should also know 2019 for a test flight of SLS is fiction... 2020 if they are lucky, 2021 more likely... and that carries zero useful payload. 2021 for Block1B... hahaha.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Again, SLS is a creature of politics, not sensibility. It doesn't matter that competing systems are reusable. That's not going to be a factor in deciding whether SLS will continue or not.
And to be fair, SLS was bending metal before SpaceX started crashing boosters into the ocean; I'm not going to fault NASA for not pursuing reusability when they were clearly directed to build an expendable system in a relatively short time frame, and especially when their previous reusable system failed to live up to its promises regarding cost and turnaround time.
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
No impact to SLS. Remember, Falcon Heavy hasn't just come on the scene....in fact she's years late and SLS wasn't riding along a competitive path. The only rocket that will be muttering in a disgruntled manner will be Delta IV-Heavy.
The Delta IV-Heavy isn't going to lose any missions over this. No more orders are being taken. Vulcan is going directly to a heavy capable configuration.
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy.
Orion is crew capable.
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
If you'll indulge my lightly comic touch a moment:
If Falcon Heavy flies successfully two more times before years end - with big, real payloads - then the knives could be or should be out for SLS. It would then be a LITERAL 'Emporer Has No Clothes' situation... Or more accurately; the Black Knight from 'Monty Python's Holy Grail', with Elon Musk playing the part of King Arthur and SLS/Boeing playing the part of the Black Knight....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs
It would be a Kerbal Kludge; but an SLS using 4x Falcon 9 Block 5's as strap on, flyback boosters would have extraordinary capability. Hey, Dr Steve Pietrobon; have at it! ;)
I'm an SLS fan, but I wouldn't mind seeing some of the outer planet probes (e.g. Europa Clipper) moved to Falcon Heavy. After all, if the launcher price in the overall mission budget is much lower, you can devote more $ to the probe itself (no skimming on science instruments). In fact, couldn't low-cost delivery to the outer planets allow even more such probes to be approved?
Emphasis mine.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
ULA offered Atlas V heavy and Atlas Phase 2 would have been even more powerful than Falcon Heavy and it didn't kill Ares which become SLS.
Keep in mind FH's LEO payload includes the remaining propellant in the second stage and the limit of the payload adapter is much lower than 63 tons.
Now BFS and New Armstrong could render SLS obsolete.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Again, SLS is a creature of politics, not sensibility. It doesn't matter that competing systems are reusable. That's not going to be a factor in deciding whether SLS will continue or not.
And to be fair, SLS was bending metal before SpaceX started crashing boosters into the ocean; I'm not going to fault NASA for not pursuing reusability when they were clearly directed to build an expendable system in a relatively short time frame, and especially when their previous reusable system failed to live up to its promises regarding cost and turnaround time.
You mean like everyone else in the history of rocketry? ...or was there a difference this time that you so conveniently forgot to mention? Selective amnesia? You people that cling to the impossibly outdated history of how it should be done are impossible to believe.
NASA gave up on reusability because they don't have the chops any more to engineer it. (Hell, they cannot even build an expendable rocket.) You who defend that failure are owners of it.
And how is that 'relatively short time frame' coming along?
Folks, the Emperor is stark naked. Deal.
{snip}
SLS/Orion have _worse_ LOC projections than STS did at shutdown. If/when a NASA Administrator or White House grapples with the reality of these figures, it's doubtful crew will launch on SLS/Orion.
To the OP's question, SLS/Orion will eventually collapse under their own weight, regardless of FH or any of the other heavy lifters in design/development. Between a poor flight safety projection, an incompetent flight rate, and a cost/budget mismatch that keeps pushing milestones over the horizon, a good NASA Administrator with White House backing can make a credible argument for termination to Congress without ever mentioning FH, especially if they could present a reasonable plan for what to do with the workforce. With the right leadership, NASA does not necessarily have to wait for Senator Shelby to retire to remove the SLS/Orion albatross from around its neck.
What FH, NG, VH, and maybe eventually NA and BFR do is alter the conversation about what to do with the SLS/Orion workforce after termination. If there are three providers offering up to five different heavy lift launchers, does NASA (or the USG in general) really need to be in the ETO trucking business anymore? Or should that talent and resources be focused elsewhere?
Do you want your cryogenic rocket propulsion engineer at MSFC working on an ETO upper stage or an interplanetary transit stage? Do you want your life support engineer at JSC working on yet another ETO capsule or a planetary surface habitat? Do you want your plasma thermodynamics engineer at ARC or LaRC working on Earth reentry or Mars entry?
I think the emergence of FH and its kin is more important to how the NASA human space flight program is organized and focused after SLS/Orion termination than to the termination of SLS/Orion itself.
The SLS will continue development, which would only make sense given that nearly all the flight hardware has been made for EM-1, and flight hardware is already in process for EM-2
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.Because when Falcon Heavy is flown in its partially reusable form (boosters and core recovered), it only gets Atlas 5-53x capability. It is a "heavy lifter" only when it, too, is expended, and even then it falls short of even SLS Block 1. It can't lift Orion beyond low earth orbit in a single launch, so multiple expended Falcon Heavies would be needed. These expendable versions are going to cost substantially more than the numbers everyone sees on the SpaceX web site.
That's not to say that Falcon Heavy and other rockets won't be able to play a big role in NASA's deep space program. There should be plenty of opportunities for systems like these.
- Ed Kyle
Multiple launches are not a problem because it is so much cheaper than SLS that you could afford five or six for the price of one SLS launch. You also don't need expendable versions, you simple expend a used stage. The trouble is that there isn't much of a role for FH in NASA's current state. How much resupply does a deep space gateway need that only gets one or two flights a year from SLS(not much)? And the only thing official so far I have seen calls for propellant deliveries only!
Multiple launches are not a problem because it is so much cheaper than SLS that you could afford five or six for the price of one SLS launch. You also don't need expendable versions, you simple expend a used stage. The trouble is that there isn't much of a role for FH in NASA's current state. How much resupply does a deep space gateway need that only gets one or two flights a year from SLS(not much)? And the only thing official so far I have seen calls for propellant deliveries only!
The energy required to reach the Moon compared to LEO is so much higher that although the DSG is smaller than the ISS, the heaviest commercial vehicles can only lift modest amounts of payload to lunar orbit. Commercial resupply could potentially be amortized through using the same vehicles to reach the ISS and DSG. The Moon is also different to the ISS because there are more destinations for payloads than the DSG itself, human controllerd rovers, probes and base equipment can be delivered directly to the surface. Satellites for observation, navigation and communications can be positioned in various lunar orbits to support the DSG and surface infrastructure.
The SLS will continue development, which would only make sense given that nearly all the flight hardware has been made for EM-1, and flight hardware is already in process for EM-2
That's the sunk-cost fallacy in action. The rational question is, is it worth spending another $15-20 billion to fly those missions ($3-4 billion per year times 5ish years), or is it better to pay termination costs and stop now?
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.Because when Falcon Heavy is flown in its partially reusable form (boosters and core recovered), it only gets Atlas 5-53x capability. It is a "heavy lifter" only when it, too, is expended, and even then it falls short of even SLS Block 1. It can't lift Orion beyond low earth orbit in a single launch, so multiple expended Falcon Heavies would be needed. These expendable versions are going to cost substantially more than the numbers everyone sees on the SpaceX web site.
That's not to say that Falcon Heavy and other rockets won't be able to play a big role in NASA's deep space program. There should be plenty of opportunities for systems like these.
- Ed Kyle
You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.Because when Falcon Heavy is flown in its partially reusable form (boosters and core recovered), it only gets Atlas 5-53x capability. It is a "heavy lifter" only when it, too, is expended, and even then it falls short of even SLS Block 1. It can't lift Orion beyond low earth orbit in a single launch, so multiple expended Falcon Heavies would be needed. These expendable versions are going to cost substantially more than the numbers everyone sees on the SpaceX web site.
That's not to say that Falcon Heavy and other rockets won't be able to play a big role in NASA's deep space program. There should be plenty of opportunities for systems like these.
- Ed Kyle
And I fail to see why you'd use Orion if you had the option of cheaper and lighter Dragon... the smaller amount of on-board delta-v is compensated for by being lighter.
(Unless you put your deep space gateway in, like, a medium lunar orbit. But you shouldn't do that anyway.
Because when Falcon Heavy is flown in its partially reusable form (boosters and core recovered), it only gets Atlas 5-53x capability. It is a "heavy lifter" only when it, too, is expended, and even then it falls short of even SLS Block 1. It can't lift Orion beyond low earth orbit in a single launch, so multiple expended Falcon Heavies would be needed. These expendable versions are going to cost substantially more than the numbers everyone sees on the SpaceX web site.
That's not to say that Falcon Heavy and other rockets won't be able to play a big role in NASA's deep space program. There should be plenty of opportunities for systems like these.
Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
$90M is the reusable price. Expendable is $270M according to the AST (see page 17 below). Still a lot cheaper per kg (270,000/63.8 = $4,200/kg) than SLS though ($1,000,000/93.1 = $10,740/kg).
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf
A. Single-launch architectures, which is what Apollo used and what the SLS is.
Multiple launches are not a problem because it is so much cheaper than SLS that you could afford five or six for the price of one SLS launch. You also don't need expendable versions, you simple expend a used stage.
Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
$90M is the reusable price. Expendable is $270M according to the AST (see page 17 below). Still a lot cheaper per kg (270,000/63.8 = $4,200/kg) than SLS though ($1,000,000/93.1 = $10,740/kg).
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf
I doubt SpaceX's internal costs for FH expendable are anywhere near $270. Bet they're closer to $150m, particularly since they can use end of life cores for the side boosters.Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
$90M is the reusable price. Expendable is $270M according to the AST (see page 17 below). Still a lot cheaper per kg (270,000/63.8 = $4,200/kg) than SLS though ($1,000,000/93.1 = $10,740/kg).
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf
I doubt SpaceX's internal costs for FH expendable are anywhere near $270. Bet they're closer to $150m, particularly since they can use end of life cores for the side boosters.Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
$90M is the reusable price. Expendable is $270M according to the AST (see page 17 below). Still a lot cheaper per kg (270,000/63.8 = $4,200/kg) than SLS though ($1,000,000/93.1 = $10,740/kg).
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf
SpaceX will likely try to get as much profit as they can while still outcompeting other comers. As they should, in order to pay back Falcon Heavy's development costs before BFR takes over.I doubt SpaceX's internal costs for FH expendable are anywhere near $270. Bet they're closer to $150m, particularly since they can use end of life cores for the side boosters.Falcon Heavy Expendable: $90M list price, but for purposes of calculations, assume $110M as a penalty price for dropping a recoverable launch vehicle into the ocean.
$90M is the reusable price. Expendable is $270M according to the AST (see page 17 below). Still a lot cheaper per kg (270,000/63.8 = $4,200/kg) than SLS though ($1,000,000/93.1 = $10,740/kg).
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2018_AST_Compendium.pdf
I am pretty sure, but what matters for competition is not the cost, but the price...
No direct impact, but FH in many ways cleared the way for BFR, which will have big impact on SLS.
Although just goes by some of the comments in this thread I wonder if even BFR can kill SLS, here's some of the arguments I predict we'll see when BFR flies:
1. BFR and SLS can compliment each other, why can't we have both?
2. BFR can't launch Orion, so SLS is still needed
3. SLS can send 30t+ to TLI in one launch, BFR couldn't, so SLS is superior!
4. No impact to SLS, remember BFR hasn't just come to the scene, it's x years late already...
5. But we have invested so many billions into SLS, it has hardware, we can't just cancel it
6. BFR hasn't demonstrated x number of flights per year, it's still powerpoint!
Now try replacing FH/BFR with Starship Enterprise, and most of the arguments still work, what does this tell you...
Ah! Good to know.You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.No, I didn't use the KSC page. I have expendable Falcon Heavy at 16.8 tonnes TMI. SLS Block 1 would be 19+ tonnes, but of course it is only going to fly one trans-lunar mission. For TLI, I show expendable Falcon Heavy at 20+ tonnes and SLS Block 1 at 24.5 tonnes.
The real comparison is with SLS Block 1B, which is expected to be 32 and 39 tonnes to TMI/TLI, respectfully.
- Ed Kyle
Musk has stated many times now that he wants to retire the Falcons and Dragons as soon as possible. Does it make sense for NASA to start a BEO exploration program when the vendor wants to retire their product in 5 or so years? At this point the first question any proposed exploration program needs to ask is will the BRF happen? If the answer is no then the Falcon Heavy and maybe SLS likely do have an important role to play.
Lets imagine that BFR is successful and everything that SpaceX is promising with it. It would be better for NASA to wait for that to come online and buy it off the shelf. While a payload meant for the Falcon Heavy could launch on the BFR it would be underutilizing the capability of the BFR.
Imagine if NASA contracted to have a Moon lander launched on the Falcon Heavy. I doubt a lander could be made and ready to launch before the BFR, if it shows up when Musk is proposing. It would be a funny situation for the BFR to be launching a moon lander while itself being capable of landing on the moon because NASA contacted another company to build the lander.
How can one discuss the relative merits of two rocket systems without acknowledging that one is throwaway and the other is reusable? The first SLS is going to go up in 4-5 years and then... it will be vaporized. Then you get to build another one.
Any Falcon Heavy lifting a heavy payload is also throwaway. And that'll be most of them, given that F9 can loft most commercial satellites.
You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.No, I didn't use the KSC page. I have expendable Falcon Heavy at 16.8 tonnes TMI. SLS Block 1 would be 19+ tonnes, but of course it is only going to fly one trans-lunar mission. For TLI, I show expendable Falcon Heavy at 20+ tonnes and SLS Block 1 at 24.5 tonnes.
The real comparison is with SLS Block 1B, which is expected to be 32 and 39 tonnes to TMI/TLI, respectfully.
- Ed Kyle
... so multiple expended Falcon Heavies would be needed. These expendable versions are going to cost substantially more than the numbers everyone sees on the SpaceX web site.
...
It doesn't matter what the throw-weight is of the SLS or any other launch system, it only matters how they are used. For instance, there are really two approaches to doing human space exploration:
A. Single-launch architectures, which is what Apollo used and what the SLS is.
B. Multi-launch architectures, which allows many launch systems to be used.
For single-launch architectures the limitation is that you get diminishing returns the farther out you go, so in reality our Moon is the furthest NASA could go with humans. That was how far Apollo went, and the SLS is about the same as the Saturn V.
...
The best way forward is to allow many launch vehicles to participate in expanding humanity out into space, and use a launch architecture that embraces that.
My $0.02
The Orion Spacecraft would launch on the second Falcon Heavy after the Lander was in Lunar orbit. The Orion would make a rendezvous with the Lander, dock, transfer crew.
Don't go into *Low* lunar orbit but instead an elliptical orbit. Way less delta-V to enter and leave. Solves a whole bunch of problems and makes logistics by a whole range of rockets easier.
Orion SM has enough ΔV only for TEI, not enough for both LOI and TEI. FH-US cannot remain in standby mode for three days waiting to perform a LOI burn. How would you get the Orion into Lunar orbit and still have enough prop for TEI? You need aux tanks on SM or a small kick stage for LOI. Alternately, you use a lighter D2, but then you need a far more robust SM that can provide ΔV for both burns and ECLSS for 3 weeks.
Don't go into *Low* lunar orbit but instead an elliptical orbit. Way less delta-V to enter and leave. Solves a whole bunch of problems and makes logistics by a whole range of rockets easier.
Dr Steve; in a 2x launch scenario where an expendable Falcon 9 launches a 23 ton, hypergolically fueled Lander into LEO, then a Falcon Heavy places an upper stage with a docking collar and plenty of propellants nearby, they dock and go TLI... Would that Lander have enough delta-v to insert itself into low lunar orbit, or would the Falcon upper stage have to do it?
I've been wondering if the Falcon stage would need extensive modifications to last a three day coast to the Moon, or would the Lander have to use 6-to-8 tons of it's propellant load for lunar orbit insertion?
Don't go into *Low* lunar orbit but instead an elliptical orbit. Way less delta-V to enter and leave. Solves a whole bunch of problems and makes logistics by a whole range of rockets easier.
Does an elliptical orbit result in spacecraft having to use instantaneous launches due to tiny windows?
You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.No, I didn't use the KSC page. I have expendable Falcon Heavy at 16.8 tonnes TMI. SLS Block 1 would be 19+ tonnes, but of course it is only going to fly one trans-lunar mission. For TLI, I show expendable Falcon Heavy at 20+ tonnes and SLS Block 1 at 24.5 tonnes.
The real comparison is with SLS Block 1B, which is expected to be 32 and 39 tonnes to TMI/TLI, respectfully.
- Ed Kyle
Your FHR payloads for TLI/TMI are probably a bit underestimated. Musk said they could possibly recover all three boosters after sending Red Dragon (which between Dragon itself and the landing propellants would be at least 10 tonnes) to TMI. That is equivalent to nearly triple the 5500 kg you have for TLI.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726820238361120768
On this occasion, as I have suggested recently, this would be 1x Falcon 9 and 1x Falcon Heavy used to transport a 20+plus ton spacecraft to lunar orbit. Sort of like the '1.5 launch' Constellation architecture. I was also recently curious about whether 2x Falcon 9s could accomplish the circumlunar tourist flight - I wondered if the expendable F9 block 5 would place enough propellants into LEO for a Dragon 2 to come long, dock with it and be on its way.
Don't go into *Low* lunar orbit but instead an elliptical orbit. Way less delta-V to enter and leave. Solves a whole bunch of problems and makes logistics by a whole range of rockets easier.
Does an elliptical orbit result in spacecraft having to use instantaneous launches due to tiny windows?
I don't think the windows are excessively short. The problem I see is that an efficient TEI burn must take place at perilune and on the far side of the moon. So it seems to me that an elliptical orbit leaves you with departure windows only once a month. You could move perilune, but that takes delta-V. Am I missing something?
You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.No, I didn't use the KSC page. I have expendable Falcon Heavy at 16.8 tonnes TMI. SLS Block 1 would be 19+ tonnes, but of course it is only going to fly one trans-lunar mission. For TLI, I show expendable Falcon Heavy at 20+ tonnes and SLS Block 1 at 24.5 tonnes.
The real comparison is with SLS Block 1B, which is expected to be 32 and 39 tonnes to TMI/TLI, respectfully.
- Ed Kyle
Your FHR payloads for TLI/TMI are probably a bit underestimated. Musk said they could possibly recover all three boosters after sending Red Dragon (which between Dragon itself and the landing propellants would be at least 10 tonnes) to TMI. That is equivalent to nearly triple the 5500 kg you have for TLI.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726820238361120768
With Reuse, FH is listed as 8 mT to GTO. How does it send 10 mT to Mars?
see:
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Falcon 9 price is listed as 5.5 mT which lines up with stage re-use. The line for FH right next to it is likely the same.
It doesn't say that the 8t to GTO is for reuse, that's just something you've surmised. I think that's more market segmentation than it is a strict delineation of rocket performance. SpaceX could use the extra capacity for secondaries, reuse, margin, or all three.You're relying on figures from the KSC ELV performance page, which has figures that are years out of date. For instance, FH can do about 16 tons through trans Mars insertion, which is about c3= 7km^2/s^2 on an *exceptionally* good opportunity. According to KSC's page, FH can only do 10t. So for high energy trajectories, FH can do about 60% better than the KSC page suggests.No, I didn't use the KSC page. I have expendable Falcon Heavy at 16.8 tonnes TMI. SLS Block 1 would be 19+ tonnes, but of course it is only going to fly one trans-lunar mission. For TLI, I show expendable Falcon Heavy at 20+ tonnes and SLS Block 1 at 24.5 tonnes.
The real comparison is with SLS Block 1B, which is expected to be 32 and 39 tonnes to TMI/TLI, respectfully.
- Ed Kyle
Your FHR payloads for TLI/TMI are probably a bit underestimated. Musk said they could possibly recover all three boosters after sending Red Dragon (which between Dragon itself and the landing propellants would be at least 10 tonnes) to TMI. That is equivalent to nearly triple the 5500 kg you have for TLI.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/726820238361120768
With Reuse, FH is listed as 8 mT to GTO. How does it send 10 mT to Mars?
see:
http://www.spacex.com/about/capabilities
Falcon 9 price is listed as 5.5 mT which lines up with stage re-use. The line for FH right next to it is likely the same.
How does it work in NASA - does the top mandate the launch vehicle for every mission?
Thanks. I'm actually from England but live in Germany and have been following NASA Space Flight for God knows how long.How does it work in NASA - does the top mandate the launch vehicle for every mission?
I see you are from Germany.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
Why does it have to be a single launch?
Whats the problem of sending crew+most important life support in launch 1 and science equipment in launch 2 for ~200mio instead of all in a single launch for 500m-1B?
I'm familiar with the pork barrel politics, but it's hard to grasp to what level it is entrenched and sets policy. I think it's strongest when there is a President who isn't bothered about NASA - ie like all Presidents since Kennedy. That allows drift in NASA, with no unifying objective other than to provide jobs in certain Senator's seats.
It also accounts for a lot of the cost difference between NASA and SpaceX and is why NASA needs to get out of the launch market, and focus on doing what only NASA can do.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
If SpaceX offered means of delivering crew to DSG using FH that NASA didn't need to fund development of. Then I can see NASA buying missions but I can't see them cancelling SLS till there is 2nd provider.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
Why does it have to be a single launch?
Whats the problem of sending crew+most important life support in launch 1 and science equipment in launch 2 for ~200mio instead of all in a single launch for 500m-1B?
If SpaceX offered means of delivering crew to DSG using FH that NASA didn't need to fund development of.
If SpaceX offered means of delivering crew to DSG using FH that NASA didn't need to fund development of.
When by? Getting the astronaut office okay with Falcon Heavy would be hard. Dragon 2 beyond Earth orbit would be too.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
Pretty sure any rational decision maker would be happier flying on a rocket that’d flown say 20 times by that point than a rocket that’d flown either once or never depending on whether you consider the new upper stage different enough.
Pretty sure any rational decision maker would be happier flying on a rocket that’d flown say 20 times by that point than a rocket that’d flown either once or never depending on whether you consider the new upper stage different enough.
Nope. I has to pass the "insight" list.
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
SLS is designed for delivering large payloads to BLEO not LEO. You need to compare FH BLEO capabilities with SLS not its LEO.
SLS can deliver 25t Orion and crew to DSG in single launch. When FH can do this in single launch then there is case for replacing SLS.
To DSG that doesn’t exist and isn’t paid for, and without a proper budget uplift cant afford to be paid for without cancelling some big line item (like SLS)
Huh, I also skipped the last part... Replace SRBs, replace engines... okay.
But a reusable stage also needs to be able to land. It needs legs to do so. Either SpaceX or Blue Origin would be the logical source for these.
It would be useful to see a price table:FH launch will be the 1st nail in the coffin of SLS. As soon as BFR launches successfully then SLS will be totally overpriced and obsolete. Hopefully the money wasting SLS will be cancelled long before BFR flies. Perhaps BO should announce NA which should pave the way for SLS's cancellation.
- Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy
- Reusable Mode with new boosters, with used once boosters, with used twice boosters
- Expendable Mode with new boosters, with used boosters, with used twice boosters
Anyway that is beside the point of article. NASA has spent $10 billion on their Heavy Lift Rocket (and another $6 billion on Orion).
I'm not sure what the latest cost estimates are but this says a target is $500 million per launch, yo make one flight per year: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/49019843/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.UFIyOxii5i4
That is probably a gross under-estimate - can NASA really maintain the systems and capability for one launch per year at less than $1 billion per year?
And what does SLS do that can't be done with 2 or 3 Falcon Heavy launches? No single module for space exploration needs to mass more than 60 tons.
The only reputed benefit over Falcon Heavy was the wider payload fairing, which might be useful for Mars entry heat shields. (Or I could see it being an advantage for large solar arrays which can't be packed so tightly). New Glenn might over come that issue.
So with hindsight, SLS should have been cancelled years ago, and the $10 billion spent on an upper stage rocket, or a space tug, or electric space tug. Orion could still be useful - and maybe a tender put out for a commercial heavy lift vehicle to carry it. Then there might be a choice of SpaceX or Boeing or New Glenn for heavy lift packages, and NASA could get completely out of the launch business and focus on space exploration.
Moving forward, can the politicians who have wasted the SLS money pay for it out their pockets?
SLS will now be completed, and have a test flight and a ceremonial flight. But then what? Every time NASA has a mission, manned or unmanned, they say it'll cost $1 billion to launch on SLS, or $180 million on Falcon Heavy. How does it work in NASA - does the top mandate the launch vehicle for every mission?
Perhaps they will be able to come up with a compromise. Falcon Heavy launches the fuel, and SLS launches the mission. But with that architecture, you don't need Block 2 in that case.
New Glenn might make it look worse for NASA. If there are two rockets able to lift >45 tons, at a fraction of the cost of SLS, who is going to be interested in using SLS?
The SLS will continue development, which would only make sense given that nearly all the flight hardware has been made for EM-1, and flight hardware is already in process for EM-2And then be cancelled after EM-2 if it does not get cancelled before EM-2 gets off the ground. EM-1 is likely to launch but any SLS launches after that are likely highly uncertain. If SLS is cancelled before EM-2 then EM-2 hardware already built will likely to go to museums. SLS will definitely not exist once the new generation of fully reusable HLLV's enter service.
Huh, I also skipped the last part... Replace SRBs, replace engines... okay.
BO can speed up the killing of SLS by announcing NA as an alternative to SLS for NASA. No doubt NA will have more capability than SLS at a cost comparable to BFR. Absolutely no need for SLS when both BFR and NA are in service. Could get up to around 50 launches of a mix of BFR and NA for the cost of a single SLS launch. The economics just totally stack up against SLS.It would be a Kerbal Kludge; but an SLS using 4x Falcon 9 Block 5's as strap on, flyback boosters would have extraordinary capability. Hey, Dr Steve Pietrobon; have at it! ;)
Each F9 is roughly an F-1 engine, so yeah that should work quite well. Haven't got the time now to do that though.
Back on topic. With SpaceX cancelling the Lunar and Mars Dragon 2 missions to concentrate on BFR, I believe that has given SLS a lifeline for now. I believe BFR will take much longer than expected, more like 10 years than five. I think a Dragon 2 going around the Moon before Orion had a good chance of killing SLS.
True, but the reasons that Musk backs off from challenging the SLS directly are equally true for Bezos.BO can speed up the killing of SLS by announcing NA as an alternative to SLS for NASA. No doubt NA will have more capability than SLS at a cost comparable to BFR. Absolutely no need for SLS when both BFR and NA are in service. Could get up to around 50 launches of a mix of BFR and NA for the cost of a single SLS launch. The economics just totally stack up against SLS.It would be a Kerbal Kludge; but an SLS using 4x Falcon 9 Block 5's as strap on, flyback boosters would have extraordinary capability. Hey, Dr Steve Pietrobon; have at it! ;)
Each F9 is roughly an F-1 engine, so yeah that should work quite well. Haven't got the time now to do that though.
Back on topic. With SpaceX cancelling the Lunar and Mars Dragon 2 missions to concentrate on BFR, I believe that has given SLS a lifeline for now. I believe BFR will take much longer than expected, more like 10 years than five. I think a Dragon 2 going around the Moon before Orion had a good chance of killing SLS.
No direct impact, but FH in many ways cleared the way for BFR, which will have big impact on SLS.1. BFR and NA replace SLS because SLS is so dammed expensive.
Although just goes by some of the comments in this thread I wonder if even BFR can kill SLS, here's some of the arguments I predict we'll see when BFR flies:
1. BFR and SLS can compliment each other, why can't we have both?
2. BFR can't launch Orion, so SLS is still needed
3. SLS can send 30t+ to TLI in one launch, BFR couldn't, so SLS is superior!
4. No impact to SLS, remember BFR hasn't just come to the scene, it's x years late already...
5. But we have invested so many billions into SLS, it has hardware, we can't just cancel it
6. BFR hasn't demonstrated x number of flights per year, it's still powerpoint!
Now try replacing FH/BFR with Starship Enterprise, and most of the arguments still work, what does this tell you...
Unfortunately, SLS is doing precisely what it was intended to do. Spread lots of pork around to lobbyists and constituents. It's not called the Senate Launch System for nothing, and as long as the money keeps flowing, the project will continue, launch or not.
1. BFR and NA replace SLS because SLS is so dammed expensive.
2. BO designs NA to launch Orion as a payload option so SLS not needed.
3. NA may be superior to SLS for TLI.
4. SLS can no way compete with BFR and NA forcing it's cancellation.
5. Just cancel SLS, give it up as a bad job to stop further money bleeding and hand over funding for BFR and NA dev.
6. US of BFR may start testing by the time EM-1 launches.
So all in all SLS needs to be cancelled now to stop billions more $ being wasted.
Perhaps Musk and Bezos should get together and force NASA to cancel SLS and to fund their HLV systems.Unfortunately, SLS is doing precisely what it was intended to do. Spread lots of pork around to lobbyists and constituents. It's not called the Senate Launch System for nothing, and as long as the money keeps flowing, the project will continue, launch or not.
1. BFR and NA replace SLS because SLS is so dammed expensive.
2. BO designs NA to launch Orion as a payload option so SLS not needed.
3. NA may be superior to SLS for TLI.
4. SLS can no way compete with BFR and NA forcing it's cancellation.
5. Just cancel SLS, give it up as a bad job to stop further money bleeding and hand over funding for BFR and NA dev.
6. US of BFR may start testing by the time EM-1 launches.
So all in all SLS needs to be cancelled now to stop billions more $ being wasted.
Perhaps Musk and Bezos should get together and force NASA to cancel SLS and to fund their HLV systems.
OK, let's paraphrase the question.BFR and NA will totally price SLS out of the market. The estimated $1 billion cost per launch of SLS is absolutely insane especially in the light of the BFR announcement last IAC. Cost of BFR per launch will be cheaper than F9 with 1st stage reuse never mind SLS and NA will likely be competitive with BFR on launch cost. Expendable launchers such as SLS won't stand a chance in a few years time as the launch market moves towards reusable systems.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
Could such a rocket exist and fly, even if it has limited use (i.e. missions to lunar orbit) and no commercial launches?
The answer should be a theoretical yes. But could it be, in this specific case?
Perhaps Musk and Bezos should get together and force NASA to cancel SLS and to fund their HLV systems.Unfortunately, SLS is doing precisely what it was intended to do. Spread lots of pork around to lobbyists and constituents. It's not called the Senate Launch System for nothing, and as long as the money keeps flowing, the project will continue, launch or not.
1. BFR and NA replace SLS because SLS is so dammed expensive.
2. BO designs NA to launch Orion as a payload option so SLS not needed.
3. NA may be superior to SLS for TLI.
4. SLS can no way compete with BFR and NA forcing it's cancellation.
5. Just cancel SLS, give it up as a bad job to stop further money bleeding and hand over funding for BFR and NA dev.
6. US of BFR may start testing by the time EM-1 launches.
So all in all SLS needs to be cancelled now to stop billions more $ being wasted.
OK, let's paraphrase the question.BFR and NA will totally price SLS out of the market. The estimated $1 billion cost per launch of SLS is absolutely insane especially in the light of the BFR announcement last IAC. Cost of BFR per launch will be cheaper than F9 with 1st stage reuse never mind SLS and NA will likely be competitive with BFR on launch cost. Expendable launchers such as SLS won't stand a chance in a few years time as the launch market moves towards reusable systems.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
Could such a rocket exist and fly, even if it has limited use (i.e. missions to lunar orbit) and no commercial launches?
The answer should be a theoretical yes. But could it be, in this specific case?
The easiest way to get SLS cancelled is for Musk and Bezos to become members of Congress. Only then will Congress wake up to the reality of reusable rockets.Perhaps Musk and Bezos should get together and force NASA to cancel SLS and to fund their HLV systems.Unfortunately, SLS is doing precisely what it was intended to do. Spread lots of pork around to lobbyists and constituents. It's not called the Senate Launch System for nothing, and as long as the money keeps flowing, the project will continue, launch or not.
1. BFR and NA replace SLS because SLS is so dammed expensive.
2. BO designs NA to launch Orion as a payload option so SLS not needed.
3. NA may be superior to SLS for TLI.
4. SLS can no way compete with BFR and NA forcing it's cancellation.
5. Just cancel SLS, give it up as a bad job to stop further money bleeding and hand over funding for BFR and NA dev.
6. US of BFR may start testing by the time EM-1 launches.
So all in all SLS needs to be cancelled now to stop billions more $ being wasted.
They couldn't do any such thing, even if they tried to do what you propose. A. NASA is not in charge of deciding how its budget is spent, Congress is; and B. that's not how federal funding works. If Congress cancels a project, that money isn't redistributed, it's just gone.
SLS needs to be cancelled now as the global launch market moves towards reusability. The SpaceX effect is causing everyone on Earth to look toward reusability except dumb minded Congress.OK, let's paraphrase the question.BFR and NA will totally price SLS out of the market. The estimated $1 billion cost per launch of SLS is absolutely insane especially in the light of the BFR announcement last IAC. Cost of BFR per launch will be cheaper than F9 with 1st stage reuse never mind SLS and NA will likely be competitive with BFR on launch cost. Expendable launchers such as SLS won't stand a chance in a few years time as the launch market moves towards reusable systems.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
Could such a rocket exist and fly, even if it has limited use (i.e. missions to lunar orbit) and no commercial launches?
The answer should be a theoretical yes. But could it be, in this specific case?
No, they won't.
SLS will fly its first mission before BFR and NA become operational. As such, NASA won't be forced to use commercial alternatives.
SLS will be primarily used to fly government missions. As such, SLS is not competing with BFR and NA.
The primary markets for BFR and NA are commercial missions, not government work.
IMO, the fate of SLS after the debut of Falcon Heavy is that it will continue to exist and (eventually) launch, even after BFR and NA have arrived on the scene.
If SLS gets cancelled now that will be end of DSG and NASA HSF BLEO. The freed up money will go back into Government coffers. NASA may buy commercial HSF services to BLEO but it won't pay for development.Cancelling SLS now will only delay DSG and NASA HSF BLEO until BFR IOC then be joined by NA a few years later. Gov. should just give the money freed up by SLS cancellation to SpaceX and BO for BFR and NA dev. respectively. Better to delay NASA BLEO HSF a few years by cancelling SLS for the dramatically reduced costs benefits of using BFR and NA. Need to force NASA to pay for commercial HLV dev. using the money saved from SLS cancellation.
SLS Orion and DSG enables HSF to BLEO. Commercial companies will eventually follow and do it cheaper allowing SLS to be cancelled.
Don't go into *Low* lunar orbit but instead an elliptical orbit. Way less delta-V to enter and leave. Solves a whole bunch of problems and makes logistics by a whole range of rockets easier.
Does an elliptical orbit result in spacecraft having to use instantaneous launches due to tiny windows?
I don't think the windows are excessively short. The problem I see is that an efficient TEI burn must take place at perilune and on the far side of the moon. So it seems to me that an elliptical orbit leaves you with departure windows only once a month. You could move perilune, but that takes delta-V. Am I missing something?
Isn't it one launch window (from Low Earth Orbit) per lunar orbit of the lunar gateway/orbiter. That doesn;t impose a constraint on launch from Earth, assuming the upper stage can orbit for between 0 and a few days.
If SLS gets cancelled now that will be end of DSG and NASA HSF BLEO. The freed up money will go back into Government coffers. NASA may buy commercial HSF services to BLEO but it won't pay for development.Cancelling SLS now will only delay DSG and NASA HSF BLEO until BFR IOC then be joined by NA a few years later. Gov. should just give the money freed up by SLS cancellation to SpaceX and BO for BFR and NA dev. respectively. Better to delay NASA BLEO HSF a few years by cancelling SLS for the dramatically reduced costs benefits of using BFR and NA. Need to force NASA to pay for commercial HLV dev. using the money saved from SLS cancellation.
SLS Orion and DSG enables HSF to BLEO. Commercial companies will eventually follow and do it cheaper allowing SLS to be cancelled.
Perhaps we should all get together and lobby Congress and NASA to get SLS cancelled ASAP and to divert funds towards expediting BFR and NA dev.
If SLS gets cancelled now that will be end of DSG and NASA HSF BLEO. The freed up money will go back into Government coffers. NASA may buy commercial HSF services to BLEO but it won't pay for development.It enables one sort of BLEO.
SLS Orion and DSG enables HSF to BLEO.
Perhaps we should all get together and lobby Congress and NASA to get SLS cancelled ASAP and to divert funds towards expediting BFR and NA dev.
A very interesting article on the Space Review:
""""SLS is simply one more government project, liberally marinated in absurdity, that continues because it has, thus far, flown below the public’s radar. Absent public outrage or, even worse, public ridicule, many such projects have soldiered on in obscurity for long periods based entirely on the politics of parochial self-interest and mutual back-scratching. But no amount of political influence tends to be able to save these things when the general public takes note. Especially when they laugh.""""
http://thespacereview.com/article/3429/1
Agreed.
Perhaps we should all get together and lobby Congress and NASA to get SLS cancelled ASAP and to divert funds towards expediting BFR and NA dev.
No, they don't need the money
OK, let's paraphrase the question.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
OK, let's paraphrase the question.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
Everyone keeps missing the point.
SLS is not subject to any kind of market pressure. At all. The eventual existence of multiple commercial offerings with equivalent performance for less cost is completely, absolutely irrelevant to SLS' future. Cost effectiveness is not the metric against which SLS' continued survival will be measured. Keeping federal dollars flowing into specific districts is the metric against which its survival is measured. As long as it fills that role, arguments about cost per launch, rate of launches, lack of missions, etc., will have little weight.
Politics and nothing else will decide SLS' fate. Certain elected officials will have to retire, die, or lose elections in order for SLS to be cancelled irrespective of the existence (or not) of FH, BFR, NA, etc. Sure, we can argue to our elected representatives that it's a waste of money and should be cancelled, and most of them will agree and push for cancellation, but unless they're in the right positions of power, it won't happen.
Agreed.
Perhaps we should all get together and lobby Congress and NASA to get SLS cancelled ASAP and to divert funds towards expediting BFR and NA dev.
No, they don't need the money
And if we do find them (indirectly), the govt should bargain hard and make them work hard for every dollar through competition.
Spaceflightnow.com:
"NASA officials said there would be significant roles for commercial partners in the lunar exploration plan. In 2022, a power and propulsion module could be launched aboard a commercial rocket to begin the construction of a space station named the Lunar Orbital Platform – Gateway. Employing solar-electric propulsion with plasma engines, the module was previously slated to launch on the NASA-owned Space Launch System"
Interesting report on today's Spaceflightnow.com based on just-released NASA budget outline. According to the report, NASA could launch the Power/Prop module of the Deep Space Gateway aboard a COMMERCIAL rocket in 2022 (instead of SLS). Commercial rockets with the lift capacity in 2022: Falcon Heavy or perhaps New Glenn.
OK, let's paraphrase the question.
Could a rocket (such as SLS) continue its existence if her direct competitors offer cheaper options?
Everyone keeps missing the point.
SLS is not subject to any kind of market pressure. At all. The eventual existence of multiple commercial offerings with equivalent performance for less cost is completely, absolutely irrelevant to SLS' future. Cost effectiveness is not the metric against which SLS' continued survival will be measured. Keeping federal dollars flowing into specific districts is the metric against which its survival is measured. As long as it fills that role, arguments about cost per launch, rate of launches, lack of missions, etc., will have little weight.
Politics and nothing else will decide SLS' fate. Certain elected officials will have to retire, die, or lose elections in order for SLS to be cancelled irrespective of the existence (or not) of FH, BFR, NA, etc. Sure, we can argue to our elected representatives that it's a waste of money and should be cancelled, and most of them will agree and push for cancellation, but unless they're in the right positions of power, it won't happen.
Even politics can't save SLS once commercial vehicles prove they can exceed its capabilities. Right now it's easy to call the other vehicles paper rockets that will never fly, and drum up support for SLS as something that NASA needs. Much harder to do that with other vehicles flying.
True, but the reasons that Musk backs off from challenging the SLS directly are equally true for Bezos.
BO does not needs NASAs money for anything.
B. that's not how federal funding works. If Congress cancels a project, that money isn't redistributed, it's just gone.
Rocket Science is hard, I guess - that's why they call it Rocket Science. But I too admit some pauzzlement as to why some of their aspirations are taking so long.BO does not needs NASAs money for anything.
Yep, amazingly they're capable of going slower than NASA without NASA's help.
When was the last time NASA developed a fully reusable, rapid re-flight, crew-rated sub-orbital booster and capsule?BO does not needs NASAs money for anything.
Yep, amazingly they're capable of going slower than NASA without NASA's help.
There is no incentive to start earning money. So there is no "rush" to get things flying.Rocket Science is hard, I guess - that's why they call it Rocket Science. But I too admit some pauzzlement as to why some of their aspirations are taking so long.BO does not needs NASAs money for anything.
Yep, amazingly they're capable of going slower than NASA without NASA's help.
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
SLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.
And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.
Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977)QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.
Human expeditions to Mars are not cheap. No matter what some might tell you.And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.
It's kind of cute that you think the $7bn are the "entire development cost of the SLS". Program cost until 2017 were about $12bn. And this doesn't include Orion...
What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977)QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?
The answer is never.
Human expeditions to Mars are not cheap. No matter what some might tell you.And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.
It's kind of cute that you think the $7bn are the "entire development cost of the SLS". Program cost until 2017 were about $12bn. And this doesn't include Orion...
What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
It's true we do not know exactly what payloads the SLS will carry. That's because they haven't been built, yet, but they will be. And we do know the payloads for a Human Mars expedition are going to be heavy. Very heavy. Far, far, heavier than anything we have sent to Mars before, like the rovers.What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.
Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
It's true we do not know exactly what payloads the SLS will carry. That's because they haven't been built, yet, but they will be. And we do know the payloads for a Human Mars expedition are going to be heavy. Very heavy. Far, far, heavier than anything we have sent to Mars before, like the rovers.What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.
Falcon Heavy is designed to put satellites into low earth orbit. SLS is in a different league.
Ya got that backwards. If you’re launching people to Mars, you want to launch them on a rocket family that flies super often for safety reasons. If you fly a rocket once every couple years, not going to be safe enough. And for the cargo: don’t want all of your eggs in one, rarely-launched (and therefore high-risk) basket.If I'm putting people on a round trip to Mars, I want to do that with as few launches as possible. Launches are risky, and I like as few risks as possible. Especially in human spaceflight. I'd go with the SLS.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.
And it's not a very fair comparison to compare the entire development cost of the SLS to the speculative per launch cost of the Falcon Heavy.
The SLS and Falcon Heavy are different rockets with different missions. The SLS has a much more ambitious objective. Putting people on a round trip to Mars. I don't expect their cost to compare.
What it means is that there are no payloads - planned or existing - other than Orion that justify the existence of SLS.What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.Is it?Yes, I think so.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977 (https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977)QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
Tell me... When was the last time there was a 130 MT payload ready for SLS. Or a 105 MT payload? Or a 70 MT payload?
The answer is never.
It's true we do not know exactly what payloads the SLS will carry. That's because they haven't been built, yet, but they will be. And we do know the payloads for a Human Mars expedition are going to be heavy. Very heavy. Far, far, heavier than anything we have sent to Mars before, like the rovers.What does that mean? We have delays in development? So what? Falcon Heavy was 5 years late. Welcome to the space business.
The point is not the delay but the utter lack of payloads that could actually use the unique capabilities of SLS.
The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?
The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?
The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.
Apples and oranges.
The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.Yes, I think so.How do you think the successful flight of Falcon Heavy will impact SLS? Will there be consequences? Will development of the rocket continue as planned, will the status quo will be maintained?I do not think the Falcon Heavy flight will effect the SLS at all. The SLS is a much more capable rocket and should continue to move forward as planned.
Or is there any chance for the Adminstration to redirect the Lunar efforts to Falcon Heavy?
Is it?
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/963493015091326977QuoteSLS maiden launch slips to 2020. That's three years to the right, at a cost of about $7 billion. For comparative purposes, NASA could buy nearly 80 Falcon Heavy launches for that price. SpaceX might even give 'em a bulk discount.
If Wikipedia is correct, the SLS has more than double the payload capacity to LEO. Falcon Heavy does not compete in lift capacity.
The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?
The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.
Apples and oranges.
The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.
The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.
Apples and oranges.
Imagine NASA purchasing 5 FH launches for $500mln and spending the remaining $6.5bn on payloads for them. They could fund and launch 5 missions in the Cassini/New Horizon/Juno class just from the current budget.
For the sake of argument, consider the costs of this three-year delay against the lift capability NASA could have bought by purchasing Falcon Heavy rockets from SpaceX in 2018, 2019, and 2020. That $7.8 billion equates to 86 launches of the reusable Falcon Heavy or 52 of the expendable version. This provides up to 3,000 tons of lift—the equivalent of eight International Space Stations or one heck of a Moon base. Obviously NASA does not need that many launches, but it could buy several Falcon Heavy rockets a year and have the funds to build meaningful payloads to launch on them.
People will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see.The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.
There is no deep space habitat. You can't do long duration missions in a small capsule (e.g. Orion).The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
FH could launch people. In fact, SpaceX planned to, but is now convinced that BFR will make that obsolete. And: I doubt that FH will ever put satellites into LEO(1). It's bread and butter market are big GEO satellites.You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.
Apples and oranges.
There are New Glenn, New Armstrong and BFR in the pipeline. At least one of them will deliver.
(1) unless it's larger fairing makes StarLink launches economically viable.
People will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see.
SLS is going to deliver.
That would be once or twice more than a BFR will ever fly.People will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see.
Let's hope there will never be a manned FH. This would mean that BFR stays on target.SLS is going to deliver.
Once or twice.
That would be once or twice more than a BFR will ever fly.
Ever? How much are you willing to bet, and what odds would you accept? :)That would be once or twice more than a BFR will ever fly.People will never sit on top of a Falcon Heavy and ride it anywhere. SpaceX has already said this. It's easy to say we are going to do this and that but delivering is the thing you see.
Let's hope there will never be a manned FH. This would mean that BFR stays on target.SLS is going to deliver.
Once or twice.
The "more than double the payload capacity" version of SLS is Block 2, which wouldn't be ready until 2028 at the earliest. SLS Block 1B has less than double the payload capacity, it wouldn't be ready until 2023 (i.e. 5 years from now). What is flying in 2020 is the SLS Block 1 which is 70t to LEO, about 6t more capable than FH, and just for this 6 extra tons you're willing to pay $7 billion?The SLS is designed to put humans back into space. Deep space. A new opening of human space exploration. That's what it is designed for.
The Falcon Heavy is not going to carry people. Never, ever. Just satellites to LEO. That's what it is designed for.
You want to go to Mars, the Moon, or an Asteroid, with people? Then you're going on a SLS, or you're not going.
Apples and oranges.
Taking the Baseline Scenario forward, adding an Advanced Booster as in Figure 10, reveals how costs and ambitions increasing at a pace faster than budgets easily places a lien on 100% of any funding the end of the ISS might make available one day. This is just for the two launches per year, plus a replacement booster development in parallel, not payloads, not Mars or any mission in-space elements like habitation or landers.
The SLS rocket was originally supposed to launch in 2017, but now the maiden flight of the SLS booster has slipped to 2020. That is understandable; most large aerospace rockets experience delays. However, the cost of a three-year delay is $7.8 billion.
That $7.8 billion equates to 86 launches of the reusable Falcon Heavy or 52 of the expendable version. This provides up to 3,000 tons of lift—the equivalent of eight International Space Stations or one heck of a Moon base.
"The question is really, why would the government continue to spend billions of dollars a year of taxpayer money for a rocket that will be unnecessary and obsolete?" Lori Garver, a deputy administrator of NASA from 2009 to 2013, told Ars. "If the US continues this travesty, it will siphon off even more funds NASA could otherwise use for science missions, transfer vehicles, or landers that actually get us somewhere."emphasis mine
FH can put 34 tonnes to TMI with one crewed launch, the same mass as SLS. It only requires one additional uncrewed launch, which adds basically no risk to the crew.The assumption in all of these discussions seems to be that the cost of developing the capability for a LEO rendezvous mission, cryogenic orbital refueling etc., is free. It certainly is not.
For example, you forgot to include here the extra two or three or more launches needed to refuel the trans-Mars stage in low earth orbit - assuming all are expendable launches. If the stages are recovered, count on six or more refueling launches.
- Ed Kyle
You're not wrong. However, any Mars mission will need either orbital refueling, orbital assembly/docking, or both.FH can put 34 tonnes to TMI with one crewed launch, the same mass as SLS. It only requires one additional uncrewed launch, which adds basically no risk to the crew.The assumption in all of these discussions seems to be that the cost of developing the capability for a LEO rendezvous mission, cryogenic orbital refueling etc., is free. It certainly is not.
For example, you forgot to include here the extra two or three or more launches needed to refuel the trans-Mars stage in low earth orbit - assuming all are expendable launches. If the stages are recovered, count on six or more refueling launches.
- Ed Kyle
None of these rockets can match the capabilities of the SLS. The SLS will go on to complete its crewed missions to Mars in the 2030s while private space companies are stuck at earth. Take it to the bank.