Author Topic: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut  (Read 55452 times)

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3863
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 8095
  • Likes Given: 943
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #40 on: 02/08/2018 01:29 am »
This is not meant to sound like a SpaceX amazing people, but I’m curious what would happen if SpaceX was given the billions and billions put into Orion and SLS, along the same development timeframe. I wonder if in that alternate universe what would have happened. For one thing I doubt the expendable Orion / SLS architecture based on decades old technology (Apollo/ STS) would have been the outcome.

Point being - if you think there’s even a small chance that SpaceX might have done something better, then it should give you pause about the direction Orion and SLS has gone in, and wonder at when the discussion should happen about moving forward with it. Is this really the best direction (if so, great!) or are you tossing $100s into the sewer to make going after that $1 worth it...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline AncientU

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6257
  • Liked: 4164
  • Likes Given: 6078
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #41 on: 02/08/2018 01:52 am »
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  You people that cling to the impossibly outdated history of how it should be done are impossible to believe.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.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 01:56 am by AncientU »
"If we shared everything [we are working on] people would think we are insane!"
-- SpaceX friend of mlindner

Offline Ike17055

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 236
  • Liked: 198
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #42 on: 02/08/2018 02:33 am »
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.

Sort of a shame, given the grandeur of the Delta IV Heavy. The triple core config, its unique ignition, with its Liquid Hydrogen fireball always makes it an exciting launch, and personally, I think there is hardly anything that matches the sight of that D4H carrying Orion aloft to stir the heart and mind. I find I revisit that on YouTube incredibly often. Seeing it rising in free flight must have been a great experience in person. A beautiful profile, that configuration. Sorry I missed that one, but I did get to make FH launch my baptism — and what a good one it was.

( And thank you Elon, for launching on schedule; i get to spend the rest of this week in the Florida sunshine, blissfully uncommitted, instead of experiencing the latest snow storm in Pennsylvania.)

Offline UltraViolet9

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Undisclosed
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #43 on: 02/08/2018 03:12 am »
SLS, even the interim, limited Block 1 variant, has more payload capability than Falcon Heavy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_prototype_upper-stage_engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)

If USAF follows through on a Raptor upper stage with 2x-3x the thrust of the current FH upper stage, NASA will get a highly capable injection stage for FH for free (plus the cost of certification).

If USAF does not follow through, barring a technical showstopper, it would be idiotic for NASA not to pick up the Raptor upper stage for FH.  It would be a much, much less costly and sooner option for large TLI, TMI, Europa, etc. missions than continuing SLS development or operating SLS.

And even without a Raptor upper stage, once you're above about 40 tons, it's payload delivered over time, not per mission, that matters for human lunar or human Mars campaigns.  The SLS launch rate is woefully incompetent in this respect.  It falls far short of DRM 5.0 needs or even the mission pace of the Apollo Program.

Quote
Orion is crew capable.

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.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 03:14 am by UltraViolet9 »

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #44 on: 02/08/2018 03:39 am »
One thing is for sure - IMO - that after seeing multiple boosters/stages return for landing, the SLS is going to look mighty old fashioned as it throws away everything.

It’s not going to cause SLS to be cancelled, but it will be another straw on the camels back that is eventually going to cancel it.

Offline Klebiano

  • Member
  • Posts: 19
  • Brazil
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #45 on: 02/08/2018 03:49 am »
I think that SLS will not be cancelled at this point, a lot of money was invested in it, so they probably gonna launch it a few times and retire. Just like a Saturn V but without the cool missions.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #46 on: 02/08/2018 04:08 am »
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.
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 04:09 am by Patchouli »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #47 on: 02/08/2018 06:27 am »
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....




hilarious. I can see Musk as King Arthur, and Shelby as the black knight. "I'm invincible ! the black SLS is invincible ! Chicken ! Chicken !"
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #48 on: 02/08/2018 06:53 am »
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.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #49 on: 02/08/2018 07:55 am »
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?

No. Launch cost is just a small portion of what probes to outer planets cost these days. Remember, those probes are always unique, one-off designs. And as such, they are horrendously expensive. Much more expensive than the vehicles that launch them. The only exception (for now) is Europa Clipper.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18197
  • Likes Given: 12158
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #50 on: 02/08/2018 08:11 am »
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.
Emphasis mine.
In case you hadn't noticed: the same applies to SLS Block 1 as well as SLS Block 1B. The SLS Core Stage burns-out very near orbital velocity, with just a small burn required by the upper stage to reach orbit.

Offline bob the martian

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • Liked: 112
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #51 on: 02/08/2018 02:36 pm »
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.

What the hell?

I agree that SLS is a stupid project.  I'm simply pointing out that it wasn't mandated to be reusable, and given its proposed flight rate, not worth the R&D dollars to make it reusable (re-use implies use in the first place).  I'm not going to fault NASA for not trying to make it reusable for those reasons.

SLS will be lucky to fly twice, maybe three times; what's the bloody point in making it reusable?

Quote
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.

They certainly have the engineering chops; it simply wasn't worth doing for this particular system.

Quote
And how is that 'relatively short time frame' coming along?

CxP and SLS are why I hope the next person who seriously suggests SDLV is shot on sight.  It sounds great on paper, but we've had two projects now that have kind of blown that idea out of the water. 

Quote
Folks, the Emperor is stark naked.  Deal.

Not news to me.  Not news to most of the people here. 

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #52 on: 02/08/2018 02:50 pm »
Bob, there was nothing wrong SDLV as was proposed at the time by DIRECT with the then proven technology. The problems got worse when congress co-opted and bastardized it into the program we have now...
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 02:50 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #53 on: 02/08/2018 03:48 pm »
{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 general public is realising that the USA and NASA are back. The public will soon start asking "When is NASA going back to the Moon?". If the House starts demanding Moon missions then the Senate will have to follow. The obvious place to get the money for the Moon missions is by raiding the SLS/Orion budget. So the Senators for MSFC, JSC and LaRC need to get projects started in their state - permitting them to claim the saved jobs.

edit : grammar
« Last Edit: 02/08/2018 03:51 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5412
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3861
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #54 on: 02/08/2018 04:25 pm »
SLS is a very impressive vehicle.

But I don't think you could spend more or take longer.

If it ever flies it's going to be far to expensive per flight.

Maybe it will get canceled if SpaceX and Blue Origin make Super Heavy lift routine and affordable. 

Then NASA can worry about building payloads, which I think they are better suited for anyway and closer to their mandate.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #55 on: 02/08/2018 04:59 pm »
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?

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2537
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #56 on: 02/08/2018 06:46 pm »
Overall, I don't think it's a fair comparison.

The FH isn't going to derail the SLS.  What truly would would be if either BFR or Armstrong come online.  I think of it as arguing a middleweight fighter trying to compete in a heavyweight class.  It will still be a while before SpaceX or Blue Origin compete directly against the SLS; and bear in mind FH is 5 years behind Elon's planned debut.  When the commercial heavyweights come online, I would agree they'll likely dethrone SLS, but in the meantime SLS likely will fly a handful of times regardless.

Personally in regards to FH I'd like to see it and SLS complement each other and use the strengths of each rocket to positive ends.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #57 on: 02/08/2018 07:19 pm »
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!

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 711
  • Liked: 475
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #58 on: 02/08/2018 08:09 pm »

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.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: The fate of SLS after Falcon Heavy debut
« Reply #59 on: 02/08/2018 08:18 pm »

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.

None of which are currently funded.... However there are lots of communications, spy and probes that go places other than the moon for commercial rockets to carry.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0