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

[Oli]

The additional amount required for government launches is not a percentage thing, it's more of a fixed cost.

Musk said its 50%. Also, SpaceX' numbers are always too optimistic.

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.

- If that 1/5 wasn't a tanker that means "mission failed".
- Well that wasn't exactly cheap, was it.

Many experts in the field of space exploration disagree..

Maybe, but its NASA who designs and flies missions.

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?

I don't think ~10% of NASA's required HSF budget (looking at the NRC report) would be a decisive factor for congress, in particular not when it goes to their beloved SLS program.

IMHO the BFR may actually be counterproductive to their emphasis on reusability and increasing flight rate to achieve cost savings.

Well I'd say bigger rockets are also a way to lower $/kg payload given sufficient demand.

[Brovane]

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

 - Ed Kyle

That is where I think Tesla comes in.  Musk owns around 30% of Tesla.  At Tesla's current market Cap this is worth around 10 Billion.  Also he owns 28% of Solar City which is also worth over 1 Billion.  Musk's passion has always been spaceflight.  He founded SpaceX before he got involved in Tesla.  Once the Model III gets launched and it appears that Tesla is on the right track and stable Musk could very well step down at Tesla to concentrate full time on SpaceX.   If Tesla and SolarCity continue to be successful he could very well use the gains from selling of shares in Tesla and Solar City to fund essentially anything he wants. 

[hydra9]

It's good to see NASA isn't cornering the market on giant rockets with no payloads   

Even Elon knows you need a heavy lift vehicle in order to deploy the appropriate hardware you need for human interplanetary journeys in space. Of course, when his rocket is operational in the 2020s or 2030s, he's probably going to get a carbon tax slapped on his fuel source for using methane:-)

Marcel 

[Brovane]

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.

Why couldn't NASA purchase BFR flights like they do with the current COTS program?

If at the time that SpaceX gets BFR flying, SpaceX could already be a service provider for the govt under contract with NASA and the DoD.  I don't see SpaceX not wanting to bother if NASA wants to buy from of the BFR production.  Usually when the govt gets involved with buying large items like Launch Vehicles, Jet Engines etc that are also commercial.  If Govt red-tape/certification increases the cost of the item the Govt pays for that cost. 

Greg

[MP99]

It's good to see NASA isn't cornering the market on giant rockets with no payloads   

Even Elon knows you need a heavy lift vehicle in order to deploy the appropriate hardware you need for human interplanetary journeys in space. Of course, when his rocket is operational in the 2020s or 2030s, he's probably going to get a carbon tax slapped on his fuel source for using methane:-)

Nah. Generate it renewably (IE CO2 is extracted out of the atmosphere), and he'll be the only net exporter of carbon out of Earth's system!

Hey Elon - CO2's a bit high. Can you fly some more MCT's out of Earth's orbit, please.

cheers, Martin

[rcoppola]

... 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

FH will have commenced launch operations 3 to 4 years before SLS. It will be known as the most powerful rocket during that time. The most cost efficient as well. From the moment it launches, thereafter, every SLS congressional hearing, news conference, status report, news article, will include a FH question / angle / comparison etc...(whether justified or not)

By the time SLS launches:

-FH may very well have Cross-Feed
-FH may have returned it's boosters for re-use
-FH boosters may have already been-reused
-Raptor (Full-up) may have been test fired
-Elon will have released BFR / MCT notional designs. (IIRC, Ms. Shotwell said 1 to 2 years?)
-D-V2 will have been fully operational

-SLS will use ICPS for one mission 2018 (un-crewed)
-SLS will move to EUS, stage length and tank limits driven by initial stack height because of using a one-off ICPS with no desire to alter MLT after.
-SLS will need another test flight with new EUS. (un-crewed) 2020-21?

Also consider the following line items that still need to be production budgeted:
-RS-25E
-EUS
-SRB's, (Steel casings are limited)
-Fairings (cargo version)

There is nothing to say that within that time frame, FH will not have itself received iterative capability enhancements, as is their practice.  FH buys SpaceX more than 53mt to LEO. It buys them years worth of credibility and expertise. Point being, when they do officially announce their BFR plans and the costs associated, an increasing discussion will ensue that perhaps NASA should do with BEO what they did with LEO and focus on the payloads not the launcher.

[fast]

Is it Raptor injector prototype? http://spaceref.com/missions-and-programs/nasa/nasa-3-d-printed-rocket-injector-roars-to-life.html

[muomega0]

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

This is REALLY easy to explain.  Too many product lines and too many LVs:  the world has excess capacity.  You can delete the fixed costs of SLS but not Falcon.  The SLS fixed costs that can be shifted to payload and technology development.
                                   Falcon     SLS        --no development cost, no lunar hardware
2 lunar sorties/year     1.6B        3.7B
1 lunar sortie/year       1.0B        3.3B
1 every other year       1.4B       6.2B        * costs over two years, so divide by 2 to compare.
                                  *0.7B      3.2B*

Orion is really hurting SLS costs btw.   But hey, the law is the law.

Its time for a new national policy to consolidate the  Atlas/Delta/SLS into a single common LV and have NASA begin a LV independent architecture, beginning with a ZBO LH2 LEO depot and a L2 Gateway voyager.

Details below.
====
SLS is  not common with any other LV and has ZERO payloads outside of NASA and hence ALL of its Fixed Costs must be born by the USG.  The fixed costs of SLS are in the 1.5B to 3B/year range with zero flights.  Its not SLS vs FH since it appears Falcon and Comm. Crew remains and so do its fixed costs.

IOW:  if you cut SLS/Orion, the country saves 3B which can be shifted to payload.  3B the current SLS/Orion budget.

So run the numbers:  the key metric is average annual metric tonnes per year.  Take two lunar sorties/year.

Falcon is 100M/13mT for Class A payload or $8000/kg or 60M (or less)/13mT  for Class D propellant, which makes up 70% of NASA mass, or $4000/kg.     

High flight rate:
Falcon:   two lunar sorties at 2x120 mT * 4000 * 0.7 + 2x120mT * 8000 *(1-0.7) = 672M + 576M
               Must add in comm crew costs too.   so thats + 400M/yr.
              fixed costs of Falcon born by AF/DOD but at a reduce rate due to NASA payloads
SLS:       1.5B plus recurring = 4X 200M minimum plus Orion (1B) plus commercial crew+ 400M.
Yikes:     At least 3.7B vs 1.6B.

              Recall that SLS/Orion today have a 3B budget and a significant amount of oversight is charged to Cross agency support.  Historically, ET, SSME, and SRMs *alone* cost NASA 1B/year, now include upper stage, avionics, operations, and Orion.

Low flight rate:
The bigger advantage is in the lower flight rate.   Only have one flight each year or one flight every other year.
1 per year:   600M+ 400M  for Falcon/Dragon    SLS:  1.9B + 1B + 400M= 3.3B
1every other year:   600M + 2* 400M for Falcon:    SLS   1.5B*2 + 400M + Orion 1B*2 +  400M*2  + recurring   so  6.2B

This is just OPERATIONAL costs!!!  Do not forget the 3B/year cost recovery for 0, 5, 10 20, or 40 years for SLS.

See Making the Business Case Close for any LV
---
The policy forward

To reduce launch costs:  1) reduce fixed costs 2) increase flight rate to spread fixed costs 3) reuse  4) optimize MUTLIPLE (not a single) LVs to the average annual mT per year.

The same thing applies to Atlas and Delta.    As pointed out by Musk:  Using three kinds of rockets in the same vehicle may optimize its performance, but at a price: “To a first-order approximation, you’ve just tripled your factory costs and all your operational costs 

So it makes sense to have the USG provide two launch vehicles that meet the AF/DOD/NASA needs to reduce Fixed costs.  "SLS" needs a common engine with the AF and the size must be drastically reduced.    For NASA BEO, this also requires high ISP engines (LH2 and EP) and reuse to reduce IMLEO.   

The new policy is two US Launchers with common elements that can fly 20 to 40 mT with single and tri cores--this solution meets *ALL* of AF/DOD and perhaps the most part of NASA's needs.     Since Falcon is rp based, it makes sense for NASA to retain a LH2 upper stage for the second launcher.
Edit:  Fixed a link.

[CNYMike]

So if St. Elon does a heavy lift rocket, is that it for refueling depots?   

But the thing that bothers me most is that there are so many issues related to getting people to Mars and back safely.  Only in recent years has NASA studied the issue of landing a large spacecraft/habitat on Mars.  I have a hard time believing Mr. Musk can solve all these ahead of NASA. 

More noteworthy is that the Spacex web site says absolutely nothing about these plans. It could be he's working on this in secret.  Or it could be he's throwing meat to his admirers while someone at the company tries to pursue a senile business plan and wishes he would shut up.

[Lar]

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

 - Ed Kyle

Musk is all in. He has been all in for a very long time. And he has some very rich friends.

I think you miss that, or are not factoring it in...

I think 10B or so (which I expect he can tap from his rich friends) will do it. SpaceX is more efficient than the SLS program can ever be, even if it was completely revamped.  But I don't think the 10B is needed all at once. IF SpaceX executes on increasing launch cadence and IF reusability turns out the way SpaceX is banking, BFR/MCT can be funded mostly out of profits.

[Ben the Space Brit]

So if St. Elon does a heavy lift rocket, is that it for refueling depots?   

I'd say 'not necessarily'. MCT (the intended payload for the SpaceX BFR) would be a lot more cost effective if, instead of returning to Earth surface to be reconditioned and launched again, it was instead serviced and refuelled in LEO or at one of the EML spots.

[TomH]

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

So you have answered my question in an obfuscatory manner, you do believe Musk is lying, so sure of it that you posit your statements as facts rather than as opinions. It is my strong opinion that you have greatly misjudged the man. You are interpreting his actions through the lens with which you have observed others' behaviors. Yes, it will take a lot of money, however that is the purpose of Solar City, Tesla Motors, and the Tesla battery venture-to generate the needed funding. The first phase of SpaceX has been to gain a foothold/knowledge base in the LV and spacecraft realm with Falcon/Dragon. Phase II is to consolidate that foothold into a dominant market share. Phase III is the manifestation of Musk's life purpose-to make ours an interplanetary species. He knows BFR-MCT will not generate profit; what it will do is actualize his dream. The other ventures are for the purpose of generating the necessary cash to sustain BFR-MCT. You have severely underestimated the man's character and life ambition.

Edit/Lar: fixed mangled quotes, please re-edit if I didn't get it right.

[Darkseraph]

Highly doubt his friends, even if they're billionaires will give him 10 Billion with little prospect of a return on investment. The amount given so far by billionaires and companies to New Space is....paltry compared to their net worth. Which I think is sane on their part, they didn't become billionaires by making crazy bets.

[Lar]

Highly doubt his friends, even if they're billionaires will give him 10 Billion with little prospect of a return on investment. The amount given so far by billionaires and companies to New Space is....paltry compared to their net worth. Which I think is sane on their part, they didn't become billionaires by making crazy bets.

Read up on Rockefeller and Carnegie. Read up on the tens of billions that Bill Gates has given away in an effort to change the world by eradicating diseases. Why is he doing it???  There is no profit there. Just legacy.

These friends of his would not be giving money because they wanted it back. They would be giving money because they want to change the course of humanity. 

People seem to miss this... they are using the wrong metrics. The metric is not "will this make money" it is "if this works, will it change things for the better, and does it have at least a chance of working"

THIS is what makes SpaceX exceptional. Boeing doesn't want to change the world, just make money.

[rcoppola]

Highly doubt his friends, even if they're billionaires will give him 10 Billion with little prospect of a return on investment. The amount given so far by billionaires and companies to New Space is....paltry compared to their net worth. Which I think is sane on their part, they didn't become billionaires by making crazy bets.

But that's not the way it works. They set up elaborate funds that are fed from other investments. You then draw a percentage of profit from that fund each year. It's how large foundations/charities work. Yes, you are forgoing a certain percentage of profits from that fund and re-directing it to your cause, but if you set up an investment fund that directs 500Million of 1Billion profits a year to your cause, you're still receiving 500Million yourself and your cause gets the other. It's not a zero sum game.

(Yes, that's an overly simplified explanation but the point is valid. SpaceX could receive billions from true believers that wouldn't be sacrificing a dime of their current net worth.)

Edit: playing off from what Lar is saying. Bill Gates didn't empty his bank account and write a check for 15Billion dollars. He has a foundation that receives a percentage of investment profits that are then written off as charity. Yes, extremely generous. But no, he's in no risk or are any of the others of altering their lifestyles.

[MP99]

So if St. Elon does a heavy lift rocket, is that it for refueling depots?   

Well, maybe, if what you want is methane.

Cheers, Martin

[Brovane]

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

 - Ed Kyle

Musk is all in. He has been all in for a very long time. And he has some very rich friends.

I think you miss that, or are not factoring it in...

I think 10B or so (which I expect he can tap from his rich friends) will do it. SpaceX is more efficient than the SLS program can ever be, even if it was completely revamped.  But I don't think the 10B is needed all at once. IF SpaceX executes on increasing launch cadence and IF reusability turns out the way SpaceX is banking, BFR/MCT can be funded mostly out of profits.

Musk doesn't even need to tap his rich friends.  His current stock holdings in Tesla are worth over 10 Billion today.  He could simply decide to leave Tesla and and transfer the stock wealth from Tesla and SolarCity into investment into his dream of going to Mars. 

Greg

[dglow]

Agree with Lar above, but let's flip the coin for a moment.

If you do want to make money, operating and/or controlling a new means of transport is, historically, a very prosperous investment. Risky, but if it pans out you're a railroad baron, or GM, or Boeing.

[Darkseraph]

Highly doubt his friends, even if they're billionaires will give him 10 Billion with little prospect of a return on investment. The amount given so far by billionaires and companies to New Space is....paltry compared to their net worth. Which I think is sane on their part, they didn't become billionaires by making crazy bets.

Read up on Rockefeller and Carnegie. Read up on the tens of billions that Bill Gates has given away in an effort to change the world by eradicating diseases. Why is he doing it???  There is no profit there. Just legacy.

These friends of his would not be giving money because they wanted it back. They would be giving money because they want to change the course of humanity. 

People seem to miss this... they are using the wrong metrics. The metric is not "will this make money" it is "if this works, will it change things for the better, and does it have at least a chance of working"

THIS is what makes SpaceX exceptional. Boeing doesn't want to change the world, just make money.

I think that's overly cynical towards Boeing. They actually have changed the world more than SpaceX...just look at how many people have traveled across the ocean in 6-7 hours in a year.

Anyway, I would say, based on the amount of money that have come from private individuals so far, Billions seems like a leap of the imagination too far. Google put forward for its X-Prize less than half the cost of the cheapest realistic launch vehicle. Spaceshipone got 29 million from Paul Allen, Branson is rumored to have given it up to $100 million for SS2 and like twice as much came from the New Mexico to build the spaceport to support it. Tito backed out of Inspiration Mars being a private mission. The most amount of money used on these projects so far seems to have come from Musk and Bigelow, and they're fanatics.

[ncb1397]

Musk doesn't need gobs of money. He needs a rocket company with thousands of employees. They were a tiny rocket startup that took on an EELV class rocket that was previously the domain of aerospace behemoths and succeeded. They are now ~10x the size and are taking on a rocket 10x as big that was previously the domain of superpowers. Note that an "exploration" class rocket is about the same size as some of the bigger airplanes out there. It is not an insurmountable project by scale.