Battle of the Heavyweight Rockets - SLS could face Exploration Class rival

[DaveH62]

Wouldn't it be interesting if NASA just put out a request for a 10 or 15m rocket capability, offering 500m per launch in 2020, and then spent everything on the current SLS budget on landing systems and deep space habitation facilities. The SLS seems like it is on track, but the opportunity cost is equal to a decade of explorations systems development that could use the FH in the next 2-3 years and the MCT by 2020. Even if MCT were pushed out to 2022, we would have a rocket and something to launch.
My on track point is, they are both great rockets, but rockets without a payload, are doomed to extinction.

[wdobner]

Would anyone else be surprised if neither of these two rockets get built?  I've always thought SpaceX's BFR is little more than a bait-and-switch approach to killing the SLS and NASA's space launch program with it.  They have conspicuously avoided commenting on the impact of a Commercial BFR on NASA's BFR, but it would seem very difficult for NASA to maintain their BFR in the face of a potential Commercial BFR.  IMHO all anyone has to do at this stage is propose to build a BFR and political forces will demand NASA cease their potential competition with the private launcher.  The southern conservatives who make up the majority of the space caucus will have to tie themselves in knots to justify a government agency competing with a commercial provider for the sake of their constituents.  It'd seem more likely they'd co opt SpaceX and try to make up for some of the loss they'd see at the conclusion of the SLS program.

SpaceX doesn't have to produce the BFR for its impact on the SLS to be felt.  IMHO the BFR may actually be counterproductive to their emphasis on reusability and increasing flight rate to achieve cost savings.  But with the SLS gone, they'd be free to offer Falcon launched depot-based alternatives (and presumably compete with other launch providers) to accomplish BLEO missions in the post-SLS period. 

[TomH]

Would anyone else be surprised if neither of these two rockets get built?  I've always thought SpaceX's BFR is little more than a bait-and-switch approach to killing the SLS and NASA's space launch program with it.  They have conspicuously avoided commenting on the impact of a Commercial BFR on NASA's BFR, but it would seem very difficult for NASA to maintain their BFR in the face of a potential Commercial BFR.  IMHO all anyone has to do at this stage is propose to build a BFR and political forces will demand NASA cease their potential competition with the private launcher.  The southern conservatives who make up the majority of the space caucus will have to tie themselves in knots to justify a government agency competing with a commercial provider for the sake of their constituents.  It'd seem more likely they'd co opt SpaceX and try to make up for some of the loss they'd see at the conclusion of the SLS program.

SpaceX doesn't have to produce the BFR for its impact on the SLS to be felt.  IMHO the BFR may actually be counterproductive to their emphasis on reusability and increasing flight rate to achieve cost savings.  But with the SLS gone, they'd be free to offer Falcon launched depot-based alternatives (and presumably compete with other launch providers) to accomplish BLEO missions in the post-SLS period.

Respectfully, I disagree on all counts. SpaceX would have to build and fly the BFR before there could be any legal way to cancel SLS due to the competitor. And if SLS exists first, even that may not be enforceable.

I also do not believe SpaceX is attempting anything subversive to undermine NASA. To the contrary, they benefit immensely from the support NASA gives them. They are testing Raptor components in NASA facilities. The Merlin engine came from technology NASA paid for. They are getting Pad 39A for what...one single dollar?

Further, you do not at all understand Elon Musk. He  is not trying to introduce depot based architecture based on Falcon. The man himself is obsessed with humanity reaching Mars. He wants to be immortalized in history as the man who not only took us there, but who provided a spaceship to take colonists there to live. His objectives are far beyond the avaricial traits to which you limit him.

[robertross]

Super article Chris; a great read.

These are going to be some interesting years ahead!

[A_M_Swallow]

Competing with your biggest customer is normally considered to be a bad idea.  Where politicians are involved this is worse because they can legally play some nasty tricks.  Competing with your supplies can also lead to problems.

A 70t SLS Vs. 53t FH will cause a lot of embarrassment.

A 130t SLS Vs. 45t FH may work providing the SLS is only about 3 times the price.

[dglow]

IMHO all anyone has to do at this stage is propose to build a BFR and political forces will demand NASA cease their potential competition with the private launcher. The southern conservatives who make up the majority of the space caucus will have to tie themselves in knots to justify a government agency competing with a commercial provider for the sake of their constituents. 

Oh, really? The US Congress has refined distribution of pork into a fine art form, and the institution practices its craft with a very high level of competence.

I highly doubt they'll allow any free-market/small-govenment/public-private dogma to trip them up.

[edkyle99]

I just don't see SpaceX developing a giant rocket unless someone besides SpaceX pays for it. 

 - Ed Kyle

who is paying for FH? reusability? who paid for the upgrade to Merlin 'D'? who is paying for the Raptor development (surely in the millions) to date?

define 'someone besides SpaceX'? Obviously you could mean the gov't but are SpaceX investors considered 'others'?

Falcon 9 and Heavy have and are costing hundreds of millions to develop, and they are small potatoes compared to a Big Rocket.  Only a government would fund such a massive project, since it has no obvious commercial payoff.

 - Ed Kyle

[Lars_J]

I just don't see SpaceX developing a giant rocket unless someone besides SpaceX pays for it. 

 - Ed Kyle

who is paying for FH? reusability? who paid for the upgrade to Merlin 'D'? who is paying for the Raptor development (surely in the millions) to date?

define 'someone besides SpaceX'? Obviously you could mean the gov't but are SpaceX investors considered 'others'?

Falcon 9 and Heavy have and are costing hundreds of millions to develop, and they are small potatoes compared to a Big Rocket.  Only a government would fund such a massive project, since it has no obvious commercial payoff.

 - Ed Kyle

We'll just have to wait and see - but they are funding an engine for a BFR on their own dime. That alone demonstrates more commitment to self funding than any existing large aerospace contractor.

My own personal dream is that the SpaceX BFR would become a reality, and that NASA could spend the SLS funds by instead having its contractors and centers build exploration payloads to be launched on the BFR. The best of both worlds, everyone would win.

It is really the only way that I can see a NASA led human BEO exploration program becoming feasible.

[Brovane]

Falcon 9 and Heavy have and are costing hundreds of millions to develop, and they are small potatoes compared to a Big Rocket.  Only a government would fund such a massive project, since it has no obvious commercial payoff.

 - Ed Kyle

In this project Elon Musk isn't looking for a obvious commercial payout. 

[TomH]

Falcon 9 and Heavy have and are costing hundreds of millions to develop, and they are small potatoes compared to a Big Rocket.  Only a government would fund such a massive project, since it has no obvious commercial payoff.

 - Ed Kyle

Well, they say they're doing it. We know they're testing parts in NASA facilities. We know Musk is obsessed with Mars. Were we to take your opinion to be fact, the only conclusion that could logically follow is that they are lying. Do you believe that to be the case? As far as Musk's ultimate objective, he isn't out to make money on this, (he is out to make money on other projects so he can finance this), he's out to enshrine himself as one of the most recognizable names in history. The most memorable names in history were usually not the richest persons from history. Enshrining himself in history as the man with the vision that first took us to another planet means far more to him than how many billion dollars he can amass. And to be truthful, I believe he may well be doing it more to advance humanity's progress than to bring glory to his own name.

[JMSC]

Would anyone else be surprised if neither of these two rockets get built?  I've always thought SpaceX's BFR is little more than a bait-and-switch approach to killing the SLS and NASA's space launch program with it.  They have conspicuously avoided commenting on the impact of a Commercial BFR on NASA's BFR, but it would seem very difficult for NASA to maintain their BFR in the face of a potential Commercial BFR.  IMHO all anyone has to do at this stage is propose to build a BFR and political forces will demand NASA cease their potential competition with the private launcher.  The southern conservatives who make up the majority of the space caucus will have to tie themselves in knots to justify a government agency competing with a commercial provider for the sake of their constituents.  It'd seem more likely they'd co opt SpaceX and try to make up for some of the loss they'd see at the conclusion of the SLS program.

SpaceX doesn't have to produce the BFR for its impact on the SLS to be felt.  IMHO the BFR may actually be counterproductive to their emphasis on reusability and increasing flight rate to achieve cost savings.  But with the SLS gone, they'd be free to offer Falcon launched depot-based alternatives (and presumably compete with other launch providers) to accomplish BLEO missions in the post-SLS period.

Respectfully, I disagree on all counts. SpaceX would have to build and fly the BFR before there could be any legal way to cancel SLS due to the competitor. And if SLS exists first, even that may not be enforceable.

I also do not believe SpaceX is attempting anything subversive to undermine NASA. To the contrary, they benefit immensely from the support NASA gives them. They are testing Raptor components in NASA facilities. The Merlin engine came from technology NASA paid for. They are getting Pad 39A for what...one single dollar?

Further, you do not at all understand Elon Musk. He  is not trying to introduce depot based architecture based on Falcon. The man himself is obsessed with humanity reaching Mars. He wants to be immortalized in history as the man who not only took us there, but who provided a spaceship to take colonists there to live. His objectives are far beyond the avaricial traits to which you limit him.

Well, one correction, legally the administration can't simply cancel SLS like they cancelled Constellation, and legally the administration is required to build a shuttle derived SLS with the money Congress provides, but SLS can still be cancelled.  It's just that Congress would need to cancel project or simply stop funding it. SLS needs to be funded by annual appropriations from Congress every year like any other government project and any significant cutback in annual appropriations would be tantamount to cancellation.  As long as there are no alternatives to SLS, SLS supporters can pretty much guarantee an adequate level of funding will flow to SLS every year for the next several years.  However, if Falcon Heavy has a successful flight next year it means the fight will take place in Congress between SLS supporters from AL, MS, FL and SpaceX supporters from CA, and perhaps Texas once SpaceX starts launching rockets from McCallen.  Once this happens there is no guarantee the necessary funding will be spent on development and operations for the SLS, as rcoppola pointed out the existence of a much cheaper rocket with close to the same LEO capability (and the press won't really focus on TLI) guarantees a resource fight in Congress.  It needs to be remembered that when it comes to money a future House and Senate are not bound by anything a previous legislative body passed unless it is an entitlement like Social Security or Medicare and as much as Sen. Richard Shelby might like to make SLS an entitlement, it's not and it needs to fight for funding every fiscal year like any other government project.

[MP99]

... What do you suppose will happen when that first FH lifts off, no longer a vague concept on some video animation. And it does so long before SLS for a fraction of the price. And lest anyone starts to think as you read this that it's not fair to compare a 70mt capable SLS with a (possible) 53mt capable (2nd stage BEO performance limited) FH, consider what the perception will be:

"If the FH at 53mt can be so inexpensively manufactured and operated, why is the SLS, with only 17 more...

I believe the initial FH will be substantially less capable than 53 mT. They will build up to it later, by adding crossfeed (and maybe some other stuff).

~40t vs ~80t+ sounds less impressive, and it won't take that much to educate people that escape is the more important metric. ICPS will start off with quite an advantage, and EUS will leave FH far behind in that regard. Maybe equivalent to 3x $135m FH flights.

Cheers, Martin

[Zython]

Relative diameter of core and nozzle for Falcon and 10m BFR:


Would be interesting to see the 15m added!

So if nine of the Raptor engines would fit in a 10 metre rocket, would a 15 metre rocket be able to fit more engines in, and thus carry more mass into orbit?

[Oli]

...and Block 1B TLI performance will dwarf that of FH.

Maybe.  But is it needed?

If staging/assembly is done in cislunar space, which by itself is beneficial, in particular if exploration hardware is being reused, it might at least be a sigificant advantage.

It probably will be some time before SpaceX can get on par with SLS, since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown just yet.  However, especially if the worst fears about SLS manifest, Falcon Heavy could prove to be more cost effective that SLS at the least. 

I think it would take some truly unexpected huge problem to not make Falcon Heavy dramatically more cost-effective.

Not at all.

Lets say an average of 2 SLS flights per year at $1bn each is replaced with 5x FH at $200m each ($135m + 50% gov. overhead). You save $1bn a year.

Problem is, $1bn a year is a fraction of the budget required for a viable exploration roadmap to Mars. In fact the additional mission complexity due to the use of a smaller launcher might eat away all the cost benefits.

One thing is certain, SLS won't make or break NASA's exploration plans.

[edkyle99]

Falcon 9 and Heavy have and are costing hundreds of millions to develop, and they are small potatoes compared to a Big Rocket.  Only a government would fund such a massive project, since it has no obvious commercial payoff.

 - Ed Kyle

Well, they say they're doing it. We know they're testing parts in NASA facilities. We know Musk is obsessed with Mars. Were we to take your opinion to be fact, the only conclusion that could logically follow is that they are lying. Do you believe that to be the case?

It is not uncommon for big companies to lay out forward-looking strategic plans, but they are not necessarily achieved as originally laid out.  Today, for example, Boeing is building subsonic 787 passenger airplanes rather than the bold "Sonic Cruisers" that it originally described.   

To build a Big Rocket, SpaceX will first need a Big New Factory and Big New Test Stands.  Then it will need a Big New Launch Pad.  Megabucks all.  The company may say it is working on a Big New Rocket, but I'll have to see these other things being built before I'll believe it is a real project.  Meanwhile, the early rocket engine work now underway could be applied to future Falcon 9 or Heavy propulsion.

 - Ed Kyle

[Coastal Ron]

~40t vs ~80t+ sounds less impressive, and it won't take that much to educate people that escape is the more important metric. ICPS will start off with quite an advantage, and EUS will leave FH far behind in that regard. Maybe equivalent to 3x $135m FH flights.

It's interesting to make comparisons just based on capabilities, and SLS would have some apparent advantages just from a BEO throw weight standpoint.

However the big unknown for the SLS and it's potential users is whether it will ever become operational - will it be there when payloads/missions are finally funded, designed, built, tested and ready for launch?  Based on flight rate minimums that NASA has stated, the window for the SLS to prove itself and survive as an operational system is shrinking fast - it may already be too late and it's just not acknowledged.

So while Falcon Heavy may not be "big enough" for the theoretical payloads some people imagine our politicians are getting ready to spend $Billions on, the one advantage that it does seem to have is that it should be there whenever those politicians get interested in doing something in space.  The old "a bird in hand is better than two in the bush" analogy.

As to the SpaceX BFR, with Elon Musk even want to share it?  It can be expensive working with the government, so it may not be in his best interests unless there is a lot of flights they are going to buy, and that gets back to the situation the SLS has today - there isn't a lot of political support for doing anything beyond LEO.  So unless the government bought BFR services "as-is" like they do for the Soyuz, SpaceX may not want to bother with the mess that comes with trying to be a service provider for the government.  I don't know, it will be interesting to see how that works out.

[DaveH62]

...and Block 1B TLI performance will dwarf that of FH.

Maybe.  But is it needed?

If staging/assembly is done in cislunar space, which by itself is beneficial, in particular if exploration hardware is being reused, it might at least be a sigificant advantage.

It probably will be some time before SpaceX can get on par with SLS, since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown just yet.  However, especially if the worst fears about SLS manifest, Falcon Heavy could prove to be more cost effective that SLS at the least. 

I think it would take some truly unexpected huge problem to not make Falcon Heavy dramatically more cost-effective.

Not at all.

Lets say an average of 2 SLS flights per year at $1bn each is replaced with 5x FH at $200m each ($135m + 50% gov. overhead). You save $1bn a year.

Problem is, $1bn a year is a fraction of the budget required for a viable exploration roadmap to Mars. In fact the additional mission complexity due to the use of a smaller launcher might eat away all the cost benefits.

One thing is certain, SLS won't make or break NASA's exploration plans.

So is your point that 1bn spent annually toward exploration is the same as no money? Since they have 18bn, saving 1-2 billion on rockets and diverting to payload has no impact? It may not make or break NASA, but at this point it is the difference between modest research projects, and potentially bending (or printing) metal. If there is another way for NASA to "find" 1-2 billion in their budget without sacrificing any mission objectives, please explain.

[Brovane]

It is not uncommon for big companies to lay out forward-looking strategic plans, but they are not necessarily achieved as originally laid out.  Today, for example, Boeing is building subsonic 787 passenger airplanes rather than the bold "Sonic Cruisers" that it originally described.   

To build a Big Rocket, SpaceX will first need a Big New Factory and Big New Test Stands.  Then it will need a Big New Launch Pad.  Megabucks all.  The company may say it is working on a Big New Rocket, but I'll have to see these other things being built before I'll believe it is a real project.  Meanwhile, the early rocket engine work now underway could be applied to future Falcon 9 or Heavy propulsion.

 - Ed Kyle

Boeing is a publicly held company with public stock holders.  SpaceX is privately held company with Musk owning 60%+ of the company.  Musk has been very specific on what his vision for SpaceX is and what he wants to do.  Musk has no board to report to etc.  He can take SpaceX in any direction he wants without really anyone to answer to. 

[Coastal Ron]

Lets say an average of 2 SLS flights per year at $1bn each is replaced with 5x FH at $200m each ($135m + 50% gov. overhead). You save $1bn a year.

You have your math backwards, but regardless...

The additional amount required for government launches is not a percentage thing, it's more of a fixed cost.  And from what Musk has stated it only adds about $10M on to the total, not $65M for each launch - what do you imagine the government is asking for that costs $325M to accomplish for a launcher that already exists?

So the total is more like $685M for 5x FH to put 250mt of mass into LEO.  Contrast that with the $2B that you calculate to put what I assume to be 210mt to LEO (the 105mt version of SLS).  The savings are pretty clear.

Problem is, $1bn a year is a fraction of the budget required for a viable exploration roadmap to Mars. In fact the additional mission complexity due to the use of a smaller launcher might eat away all the cost benefits.

The tradeoff for "additional mission complexity" is putting a higher risk on a brand new launch system.  At one launch per year it will take a decade to have achieved the same level "wringing out" that the Falcon Heavy will have done by the time the SLS becomes operational.  So using your example above if one Falcon Heavy fails you lose 1/5 your assets, whereas if one SLS mission fails you lose 1/2.  You tell me which is worse.

And from a "mission complexity" standpoint, we have already shown that we can assemble a 450mt space station from many components successfully, so I'm not sure why there is any handwringing about this.

One thing is certain, SLS won't make or break NASA's exploration plans.

Many experts in the field of space exploration disagree, and certainly one way to understand why is to count how many payloads and missions are in the approval and funding process for the SLS.  I'll do the math for you - it's zero.

As of today the SLS is certainly not enabling NASA's exploration plans...

[edkyle99]

It is not uncommon for big companies to lay out forward-looking strategic plans, but they are not necessarily achieved as originally laid out.  Today, for example, Boeing is building subsonic 787 passenger airplanes rather than the bold "Sonic Cruisers" that it originally described.   

To build a Big Rocket, SpaceX will first need a Big New Factory and Big New Test Stands.  Then it will need a Big New Launch Pad.  Megabucks all.  The company may say it is working on a Big New Rocket, but I'll have to see these other things being built before I'll believe it is a real project.  Meanwhile, the early rocket engine work now underway could be applied to future Falcon 9 or Heavy propulsion.

 - Ed Kyle

Boeing is a publicly held company with public stock holders.  SpaceX is privately held company with Musk owning 60%+ of the company.  Musk has been very specific on what his vision for SpaceX is and what he wants to do.  Musk has no board to report to etc.  He can take SpaceX in any direction he wants without really anyone to answer to. 

He can until the money runs out.  A rocket bigger than SLS could take it all.

 - Ed Kyle